Loading...
PD - Win Drive In Site -1996· O/CCH A~0 ' CITY oF CAMPBELL Community Development Department CAMPBELL July 25, 2002 Conning Asset Management Attn: John C. Neff, District Vice President 2682 Bishop Drive, Suite 209 San Ramon, CA 94583 Re; Campbell Technology Park - Zoning Certification 695 Campbell Technology Parkway Dear Mr. Neff, This letter is to advise you that the zoning of the above referenced property located at 695 Campbell Technology Parkway is governed by the laws and regulations of the City of Campbell. This property is zoned P-D (Planned Development) and the current underlying General Plan designation is Research and Development. The City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1954 on December 7, 1997, allowing the construction of a two story research and development building on the referenced property. The subject building and uses are in compliance with applicable zoning requirements. A review of our records indicates that there are no active zoning violations. If you have any questions regarding this information, please feel free to phone me at (408) 866-2144. Tim Haley Associate Planner Enclosures: Ordinance No. 1954 Planned Development Zoning District CC: Geoff Bradley, Senior Planner Kenneth Neumeister, Huettig & Schomm, Inc. J:~Zoning Letters\695 Campbell Technology Parkway.doc 70 North First Street . Campbell, California 95008-1436 . TEL 408.866.2140 . FAX 408.87 1.5 140 · TDO 408.866.2790 CITY oF CAMPBELL Community Development Department - Current Planning March 26. 2002 Rosemarie Guanill Woodruff-Sawyer & Co. 220 Bush Street, 7~ Floor San Francisco, CA 94104-3509 RE:' Release of Performance Bond SB 103320295 Huettig & Schromm, Inc. Campbell Technolgy Park Dear Ms. Guanill: Please accept this letter as a release of the above referenced bond for faithful performance. The landscaping, concrete work, patios and fountains associated with this bond have been completed to the City of Campbell's satisfaction. If you should have any questions regarding this release, please do not hesitate to contact me at (408) 866- 2144. Sincerely, Tim J. Hale'y Associate Planner Ken Neumeister, Project Architect, Huettig & Schromm, Inc. J:\Correspondence\bond release ctp.doc 70 North Firqt C~rreet Campbell (ialirornia 95()08-1z36 ~t!. 4053062140 ,:x 408.$66.53.51 :'Dh 408.$60.2790 P.O1 HUI:TT1C, & $CHROMM, INC. FAX TRANSMITTAL DATE: ~ /151 2002 SEND TO FAX It: # OF PG5: '2, ~mCLUOW~ rH~$ COVe~ SH~zr SENTBY: HUETTIG& $CHROMM, INC. KEN N£UMEISTER- CONSTRUCTION pROjECT MANAGER & ARCHITECT 90Q WELCH ROA~. suite ~0 PALO ALTO. CA ?4304 [050]32~-2121 exttl5 e-mail: kan-h$@ pacbell, net t COMMENTS:_ ~ ~ ~ ~e.d.~ C[oV~,,P~ ? ' .5~O~ginal Will Not Follow Original Will Follow by: Hand Delivery ~ Regular Mail t Other: Welch Road, Suite 10 · Polo Alto, California ¢/4.304 · (bSO) 322-2121 S~ (.'g. rtlrac~m Lic~t'~f~B Num~l' 1 · fa~: lb50} 322-5020 Bond Number: 005 SB 103320295 Premium: $2,500.00 BOND FOR FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE We, the undersigned Huettig & Schromm, Inc. , (hereinafter "Principal ")and Travelers Casualty and Surety Company qfa corporafion organized under the laws of America the State of C, onn~'v~c'.~- , and authorized to transact business in the State of California, as Surety, are obligated to the City of Campbell, (hereinafter "City") a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of California, in the sum of One Hundred Thousand and no/lO0 Dollars ($ 1 O0,000.00----) for the payment of which sum we ooligate ourselves and our successors and assigns, jointly and severally by the following provisions: The condition of this obligation is: Because the obligated Principal has, on ,20 , entered into written Contract with the City for the Project, a copy of which contract is attached and made a part of this bond, for consmaction of Project Campbell Technology Park - Landscaping, including concrete walks~ patio & foundain installation Now, therefore, if the Principal shall faithfully perform the work in accordance with the plans, specifications and contract documents during the original term, and any extensions of the contract which may be granted by the City, with or without notice to the surety, and if it shall satisfy all claims and demands incurred under the contract, and shall fully indemnify and save harmless the City from all costs and damages which it may suffer by reason of failure to do so, and shall reimburse and repay the City all outlay and expense which the City may incur in making any default, then this obligation shall be void; otherwise to remain in full force and effect, with surety obligated to secure the full and faithful performance of all of Principal's obligations under the attached contract. If any legal action be filed upon this bond, it shall be filed within one year after final payment has been made under the Contract excluding the warranty period, if any, provided for in the Contract, and venue shall lie in the County of Santa Clara, State of California, and that surety, for value received stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the Contract or to the work to be performed under it or the specifications accompanying it shall in any way affect its obligation on this bond, and it does by this means waive notice of any change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the Contract or to the work or to the specifications, and thereby waives the provisions of Section 2819 of the Civil Code of the State of California. In wimess, the parties have executed this agreement as of February 28, ,20 01 (Surerv~ Travelers Casualty and Surety ~-~ompany of Amer%ca '.-~semar~e Guan~z~ Attorney-in-Fact Ad~essofSure~: 555 California St, San Francisco, Ca. 94104 (Attach Acknowledgements) (Both Principal's and Surety's Attorney in Fact) (j:\forms\fpbond) (revl2/00) Surety's Bond Number 005 SB 103320295 (Accompany this bond with Attorney-in-fact's authority from Surety to execute the bond, certified to include the date of the bond.) EXHIBIT A ~' LANDSCAPE AREA INCLUDED //' // / FOR BONDING .~k // SEE HATC'HED AREA 7 ) // // / / / / / / / / CAMPB LL T CHNOLOGY PARK CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of ~ '~C) ~' ~, ~ County of S(~I~ Date ' Name and ~tle of Officer (e.g., "Jane Doe, Nota~ Pu~) personally appeared ~~d 0. ~1 ~ , ' ' ~ame~s)-of Signer(s) ~onally known to me - OR - ~ proved to me on the basis of satisfacto~ evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(les), and that by ~--~-~;~[~- ~.' ~;[~~ h,s/hor/thoir s,~naturo(s)on tho instrumo~t tho porso~(s), or tho entity upon bohalf of which tho person(s) actod, - ~~ C0mm, 8 1179955 l~ executed the instrument. ~ ~~1 N01AR'¢ PUbLiC-CALIFORNIA ~ S,n. c,,,, c0u.,v ~~ My Comm. E~ir,s May 4,2002 ~ WITNESS my hand and official seal. I - ~ Signature of Nota~ Public OPTIONAL Though the information below is not required by la~ it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and rea~achment of this form to another document. Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document: ~'~~ .'~ Document Date: Number of Pages: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capacity(les) Claimed by Signer(s) Signer's Name: '~[~ C~. ~/~i ."[~ '~ncodiVidual Officer¢ rporate Title(s): ~5 [~/~'L [] Partner-- [] Limited [] General [] Attorney-in-Fact [] Trustee [] Guardian or Conservator [] Other: -rop of thumb here Signer Is Representing: Signer's Name: [] Individual [] Corporate Officer Title(s): [] Partner-- [] Limited [] General [] Attorney-in-Fact [] Trustee [] Guardian or Conservator [] Other: Signer Is Representing: Top of thumb here © 1994 National Notary Association · 8236 Remmet Ave., P.O. Box 7184 · Canoga Park, CA 91309-7184 Prod. No, 5907 Reorder: Call Toll-Free 1-800-876~6827 · CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT No. 5907 State of California County of San Francisco On February 28, 2001 DATE before me, AnnAnthony, Notary Public NAME, TITLE OF OFFICER - E.G., "JANE DOE, NOTARY PUBLIC" personally appeared Rosemarie Guanill , NAME(S) OF SIGNER(S) :~ personally known to me - OR - [] proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and ac- knowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. ~-~.~,- !'~,~,. :~:~ NOTARY PUBL /~ · '~?~ SAN F~,NC SCO COUN~ ~ --~ ~<'.~ ~ Comm. Expires WITNESS my hated and official seal. SIGNATURE OF NOTARY OPTIONAL Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form. CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER [] INDIVIDUAL [] CORPORATE OFFICER DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT TITLE(S) [] PARTNER(S) [] LIMITED [] GENERAL [] ATTORNEY-IN-FACT [] TRUSTEE(S) [] GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR [] OTHER: TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT NUMBER OF PAGES DATE OF DOCUMENT SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(lES) Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE ©1993 NATIONAL NOTARY ASSOCIATION · 8236 Remmet Ave., P.O. Box 7184 · Canoga Park, CA 91309-7184 TRAVELER~c JALTY AND SURETY COMPANY OF AM TRAVelERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY FARMINGTON CASUALTY COMPANY Hartford, Connecticut 06183-9062 'A POWER OF ATTORNEY AND CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY OF ATTORNEY(S)-IN-FACT KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS, THAT TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY OF AMERICA, TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY and FARMINGTON CASUALTY COMPANY, corporations duly organized under the laws of the State of Connecticut, and having their principal offices in the City of Hartford, County of Hartford, State of Connecticut, (hereinafter the "Companies") hath made, constituted and appointed, and do by these presents make, constitute and appoint: Charles R. Shoemaker, Nancy L. Hamilton, Roger C. Dickinson, Rosemarie Guanill, Stanley D. Loar, of San Francisco, California, their true and lawful Attorney(s)-in-Fact, with full power and authority hereby conferred to sign, execute and acknowledge, at any place within the United States, the following instrument(s): by his/her sole signature and act, any and all bonds, recognizances, contracts of indemnity, and other writings obligatory in the nature of a bond, recognizance, or conditional undertaking and any and all consents incident thereto and to bind the Companies, thereby as fully and to the same extent as if the same were signed by the duly authorized officers of the Companies, and all the acts of said Attorney(s)- in-Fact, pursuant to the authority herein given, are hereby ratified and confirmed. This appointment is made under and by authority of the following Standing Resolutions of said Companies, which Resolutions are now in full force and effect: VOTED: That the Chairman, the President, any Vice Chairman, any Executive Vice President, any Senior Vice President, any Vice President, any Second Vice President, the Treasurer, any Assistant Treasurer, the Corporate Secretary or any Assistant Secretary may appoint Attorneys-in-Fact and Agents to act for and on behalf of the company and may give such appointee such authority as his or her certificate of authority may prescribe to sign with the Company's name and seal with the Company's seal bonds, recognizances, contracts of indemnity, and other writings obligatory in the nature of a bend, recognizance, or conditional undertaking, and any of said officers or the Board of Directors at any time may remove any such appointee and revoke the power given him or her. VOTED: That the Chairman, the President, any Vice Chairman, any Executive Vice President, any Senior Vice President or any Vice President may delegate all or any part of the foregoing authority to one or more officers or employees of this Company, provided that each such delegation is in writing and a copy thereof is filed in the office of the Secretary. VOTED: That any bend, recognizance, contract of indemnity, or writing obligatory in the nature of a bond, recognizance, or conditional undex~taking shall be valid and binding upon the Company when (a) signed by the President, any Vice Chairman, any Executive Vice President, any Senior Vice President or any Vice President, any Second Vice President, the Treasurer, any Assistant Treasurer, the Corporate Secretmy or any Assistant Secretary and duly attested and sealed with the Company's seal by a Secretary or Assistant Secretary, or (b) duly executed (under seal, if required) by one or more Attorneys-in-Fact and Agents pursuant to the power prescribed in his or her certificate or their certificates of authority or by one or more Company officers pursuant to a written delegation of authority. This Power of Attorney and Certificate of Authority is signed and sealed by facsimile under and by authority of the following Standing Resolution voted by the Boards of Directors of TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY OF AMERICA, TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY and FARMINGTON CASUALTY COMPANY, which Resolution is now in full force and effect: VOTED: That the signature of each of the following officers: President, any Executive Vice President, any Senior Vice President, any Vice President, any Assistant Vice President, any Secretary, any Assistant Secretary, and the seal of the Company may be affixed by facsimile to any power of attorney or to any certificate relating thereto appointing Resident Vice Presidents, Resident Assistant Secretaries or Attorneys-in-Fact for purposes only of executing and attesting bonds and undertakings and other writings obligatory in the nature thereof, and any such power of attorney or certificate bearing such facsimile signature or facsimile seal shall be valid and binding upon the Company and any such power so executed and certified by such facsimile signature and facsimile seal shall be valid and binding upon the Company in the future with respect to any bond or undertaking to which it is attached. (5-00 Standard) City of Campbell -- Community Development Department 70 N. First Street, Campbell, CA 95008 Transmittal To: Ken Neumeister Huettig & Schromm From: Tim J. Haley, Associate Planner Subject: Performance Bond - Campbell Technology Park 005 SB 103320295 Date: March 9, 2001 This transmittal shall confirm our phone conversation of March 8, 2001 wherein I described additional information that should be submitted with the project completion performance bond. As follows: 1) Provide a calculation of how the $100,000.00 performance bond was determined. 2) Provide a time period when performance/or project completion is anticipated. 3) The Planning Division still has significant concerns regarding the level of landscaping along the Highway 17 frontage (this would include both on-site and off-site plantings) 4) The Planning Division still request the planting of redwood tree grouping at the project entrance to achieve the concept depicted in the conceptual perspective. 5) Completion and repair of the northeast emergency driveway and 6) Approval for any visible roof mounted antennas. Please do not hesitate to call, if you wish clarification of any of these items. cc: Bill Bmckart, Building Official Kirk Heinrichs, Redevelopment Manager Geoff Bradley, Senior Planner Tim J. Haley 70 N. First Street (408) 866-2140 (408) 866-8381 (fax) To: Mr. Neumeister From: Tim J. Haley Fax: (650) 322 5029 Pages: 2 Phone: (650) 322 2121 Date: March 9, 2001 Re: Performance Bond CC: [] Urgent For Review X Please Comment [] Please Reply [] Please Recycle Please call if you have any questions.- Tim CITY OF CAMPBELL Community Development Department - Current Planning July 31, 2001 Mr. Ken Neumeister Huettig and Schromm 900 Welch Rd., Suite 10 Palo Alto, CA 94303-0754 Re: Landscaping Plan Campbell Technology Park Highway 17 Frontage Dear Ken: The P,lanning Division has reviewed and approved your landscape architect's submittal dated April 3, 2001 of an upgraded landscaping plan along the Highway 17 frontage for the above referenced project. Additionally, during a meeting at the site, the issue of relocation the redwood trees to the planting areas north of Building "C" was discussed. This recommendation was to provide a substantial screening tree between the building and highway that could not be accommodated adjacent to the retaining wall. Please notify this office when this landscaping installation is complete, so that a final inspection may be conducted for this project. I may be reached at (408) 866-2144. Tim J. Haley Associate Planner cc: Christopher Kankel, ASLA, Kikuchi & Associates, 730 Mill Street, Half Moon Bay, CA 94019 70 North First Street · Campbell, California 95008-1436 · TEL 408.866.2140 · F.aX 408.866.8381 · TDD 408.866.2790 CITY OF CAMPBELL Community Development Department - Current Planning May 22, 2001 Mr. John Crediford, Senior Project Manager -Huettig & Schromm 900 Welch Road, Suite 10 Palo Alto, CA 94304 Re: Planning Division Final - Campbell Technology Park 635,655,675 and 695 Campbell Technology Parkway Dear Mr. Crediford: The Planning Division has reviewed and 'approved your request to retain the temporary 4' sidewalk adjacent to Building "A". This approval is subject to the condition that the number and size of trees and shrubs previously shown in this area shall be accommodated in the narrower planting strip and that the irrigation plan also shall be amended accordingly. Please contact Jim Hinkle in the Building Division regarding any plan submittals to the Building Division to document this change. If you should have any questions regarding this approval, I may be reached at (408) 866-2144. Tim J. Haley Associate Planner cc: James Hinkle, Building Division GeoffBradley, Senior Planner 70 North First Street . Campbell, California 95008- 1436 · rF1 408.866.2 140 . Fix 408.866.8381 · TDD 408.866.2790 April 3, 2001 RECEIVED APR 0 6 2001 CITY OF CAMI I £LL PLANNING DEPT, Kik.uchi & Associates Landscape Architecture Site Planning Tim Haley Campbell Community Development Department 70 N. First Street Campbell, CA 95008 RE: Campbell Technology Park Highway 17 Frontage Dear Tim: Please find enclosed revised planting plans dated 3/30/01 for the above referenced project. As per our recent conversation, we have revised the planting plans for Building C to provide screening for off-site views from Highway 17. The intention of these additional trees is to provide continuous screening on site in lieu of additional plant material off site in the CalTrans right of way for the same purpose. Major existing trees in the CaITrans right of way are indicated as lighter green, and proposed additional trees on site are indicated as a slightly darker green. After conversations with the project soils engineer, an agreement was reached which would allow trees to be planted near the retaining wall adjacent to the property line as long as the tree met a strict criteria set by the soils engineer. The selected tree, Heterome/es arbut/fo//a, is a deep rooted native tree and will not damage the retaining wall. The tree will grow to approximately 25' tall and about as wide. It is a dense tree and will provide substantial screening. Literature has been enclosed for your information. The total additional proposed trees are as follows: · (14) 15 gallon Heteromeles Arbutifolia · (4) 15 gallon Sequoia sempervirens · (2) 24" box Sequoia sempervirens · (2) 15 gallon Rhus lancea 22 Total proposed additional trees Only 15 gallon trees are proposed for below the wall because of access. We feel that placing 24" trees at the base of the wall will be too difficult, and the size of the plant pit required to properly install a 24" box tree could jeopardize the stability of the wall. The additional Sequoia and Rhus trees will fill in the remainder of the gap between the proposed Heteromeles and the trees installed per plan as part of the Building B work. 730 Mill Street · Half Moon Bay, CA 94019 (650) 726-7100 · Fax (650) 726-7677 Steven T Kikuchi, ASLA, Principal Christopher Konkel, ASLA Principal Some other points worth noting: The remainder of the trees in the site frontage from Building C to the south corner of the overall site have been planted. There are 50 trees planted over 1,200 lineal feet of frontage. The average spacing is 24' o.c. We feel that the trees as planted and as proposed will provide a dense screen to greatly reduce and even eliminate the view of the property over time. The trees as proposed to be planted on site in front of the retaining wall will provide a better screen than trees and shrubs as proposed in the highway right of way. This is because we do not need to conform to CalTrans standards and can plant larger species at closer spacing than would be allowed in the right of way. Also, trees planted on site will receive a far greater amount of care and maintenance than plant material installed off site. There is also the concern that planned widening of the highway could disrupt any new plantings in the right of way. As a final note to reassure the City about the visible retaining wall at the Building C site, the plans indicate three different species of vines to cover all the fences and wall. Jasminum polyanthum will be planted at the top of the wall and will cover the four foot high fence/guardrail on top of the wall. Below the wall is a mix of Plumbago ariculata and Passiflora alatocaerulea. These two vines will cover both the wall and property line fence. Irrigation has been installed for this area and planting will take place soon. We believe that the existing and proposed plantings will adequately screen the site from off site views. Please review the enclosed material and don't hesitate to contact us with any questions or comments. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Christopher Kankel, ASLA Kikuchi & Associates c: Ken Neumeister, Huettig and Schromm enclosures HUETI'IG & SCHROMM, INC. March 16, 2001 City of Campbell Community Development Department - Cun'ent Planning 70 North First Street Campbell, CA 95008-1423 Attn.: Tim Haley-Associate Planner Re: 695 Campbell Tech. Parkway, - Bonding Supplimental Information RECEIVED CITY 0I: CAUP ELL PLANNIiqG DEPT, · Dear Mr. Haley: This letter is in response to your request for additional information concerning the Bond that was acquired for the unfinished landscaping. The following items are in direct response to your March 9th letter. 1. The $100,000 bond amount was estimated as follows: · Total landscaping contract = $141,885 of which we estimated is 75% complete --) $35,471 left to complete. · Total concrete contract = $190.159 of which we estimate is 80% complete "-) $38,032 left to complete. · The remaining landscaping along the Highway 17 frontage is estimated at approximately $17.500 (@700 1.f. 10 ft wide at $2.50 per square feet). · The above items total $91,003. As to provide a round even dollar we provided a $100,000 bond. 2. We estimate that completion will take an additional 15-20 work days, depending on weather we expect 100% completion by April 13 2001. 3. The landscaping along the Highway 17 frontage is being done now and should be complete by March 28th. Some of the delay in doing this work was related to the our tenant improvement work and the contractors staging storage areas along this area and the repair work we did to the retaining wall. It did not make sense to install plan materials that would get "trashed" by the other contractors. 4. Three 24" box re4wood trees are planned to be planted alone the end of the adjacent building. This planting will fill-in the entire length. This work will be done within the same time frame as the other work. 5. The repair of the northeast emergency driveway is already complete. 6. I have not been dircctiy in.;::;Ived in the placcmen~ of the ~oof rno~.:nted antennas however, I will be glad to help interface with you, the tenants and the property management in order to facilitate the an equitable solution. If you shoule~ have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me. / Kenneth A. Neumeister~ ..... Project Manager- Architect c c: EED Ctpci 15 900 Welch Road, Suite 10 · Palo Alto, California 94304 · (650) 322-2121 ° Fax: (650) 322-5029 Slate Contractors License Number 129060 CITY OF CAMPBELL Community Development Department To.' Date: Archon Financial, L.P. 600 E. Las Colinas Boulevard Suite 800 Irving, TX 75039 January 9, 2001 CERTIFICATION OF ZONING Re: Land and improvements owned by WTA-Campbell Technology Park, LLC ("Owner") located in Campbell, Santa Clara County, California, located at 635, 655, 675 & 695 Campbell Technology Parkway and known as "Campbell Technology Park" (the "Property") Dear Sir or Madam: I am the Community Development Director of the City of Campbell (the "Jurisdiction"), and I am responsible for the enforcement of the zoning ordinance of the Jurisdiction (the "Zoning Code") and otherwise have knowledge of the facts required to give this certification. I am familiar with the Property described above. Based upon my review of the Zoning Code and all other resolutions, variances, conditions and records applicable to the Property, I hereby certify the following: 1. Zoning District. The Property is zoned P-D (Planned Development) and is shown as an Industrial Land Use on the land use element of Campbell's General Plan under the laws or ordinances of the Jurisdiction. This zoning is the proper zoning for the improvements located on the Property. Attached hereto are true copies of the applicable ordinances, resolutions or regulations relating to the zoning and use of the Property and all conditions attached to such zoning and to the development of the Property. The Property is in compliance with all of the aforesaid ordinances, resolutions, regulations and conditions. 2. Use Restrictions. Use of the Property for R&D / Office is permitted under the zoning ordinance. The Property is not a non-conforming use. No special use permits, conditional use permits, variances or exceptions have been granted nor are needed to use the Property for the current use thereof. The Property is not located in any special districts such as historical districts. 3. Dimensional Requirements. The Property complies with all dimensional requirements of the Zoning Code, including, but not limited to, minimum lot area, maximum building height, maximum floor area ratio and setback or buffer requirements. 4. Parking Requirements. The Property is in compliance with all parking and loading requirements, including the number of spaces, handicapped spaces, subcompact spaces and dimensional requirements for the parking spaces. 70 North First Street . Campbell, California 95008-1436 · -rEt. 408.866.2140 · FAX 408.8665381 . TDD 408.866.2790 Certification of Zoning- Campbell Technology Park Page 2 5. Screening and Landscaping Requirements. The Property is in compliance with all screening and landscaping requirements. 6. Sign Requirements. The Property is in compliance with all sign requirements, including height of signs, size of signage, signage setback requirements and any other signage restrictions. 7. Access. Access to the Property is from a publicly dedicated and accepted right of way and all driveways from the Property onto such right of way are in compliance with all applicable driveway ordinances and regulations and all permits, if any, required in connection therewith have been issued. 8. No Violations. There are no existing violations with respect to the Property of the Zoning Code or any other applicable codes, fire codes, environmental codes and safety codes. Also, there are no pending rezoning applications, hearings, cases, appeals or other proceedings, which could affect the zoning classification of the Property. 9. Subdivision Requixements. The property is in compliance with all applicable subdivision requirements, and carry any and all plats, permits and approvals necessary to subdivide the Property from any tract or parcel of land adjacent thereto and now or heretofore owned in common with the owner of the Property have been properly filed, recorded and/or issued. Neither conveyance of the Property by a mortgage instrument nor subsequent foreclosure or deed in lieu thereof will cause the Property to violate any subdivision requirements. Sharon Fierro Title: Community Development Director Enclosures: 1) Ordinance No. 1954 Planned DeVelopment Permit 2) Chapter 21.06 Planned Development Districts, Campbell Municipal Code CITY OF CAMPBELL Community Development Department · Current Planning March 24, 2000 Mr. Kenneth Neumeister Huettig & Schomm, Inc. 900 Welch Road, Suite 10 Palo Alto, CA 94304 Re: Planning Division Plan Check 99-1138 Emergency Generator and Enclosure Building 'C' Dear Mr. Neumeister: The Planning Division has reviewed your building submittal for an enclosure area and generator for Excl Communications. The Planning Division is not supportive of this installation due to the elimination of parking spaces, the precedent of establishing outside storage facilities on this site and the architectural compatibility of the enclosure structure. It is recommended that an alternative solution be investigated that places this generator within the building or on the roof behind appropriate screening. If neither of these options are feasible, this enclosure area should be considered with a larger landscape area that would provide appropriate SCreening and buffering. Please contact the undersigned, if you should have any questions regarding these decision. I may be reached at (408) 866-2144. Sincerely, Tim J. Haley Associate Planner cc'. Kirk Heinrichs, Redevelopment Manager Linda Stamen, TSH Architects Sharon Fierro, Interim Community Development Director Frank Mills, Building Plan Checker 70 North First Street · Campbell, California 95OO8.1423 · T~L 408.866.2140 - F^X 408.866.8381 . TOO 408.866.2790 HUEI-I'IG & SCHROMM, INC. January 8, 2001 City of Campbell Community Development Department - Current Planning 70 North First Street Campbell, CA 95008-1423 Attn.: Tim Haley - Associate Planner Re: 635,655,675,695 Campbell Tech. Parkway, - Lending Requested Letter of Compliance Dear Mr. Haley: This letter is to request the City of Campbell to provide a letter stating the status of Zoning compliance for the Campbell Technology Park project that is being asked of us to provide our new lender as part of a refinancing action. I have provided a draft letter for your use which, Archon Financial provided and I have edited to reflect the CTP project.. Pl6ase feel free to add and delete as you see fit. You may wish to note that the project is not complete at this time but that based on information obtained from us and your inspection of the work, that completion is expected within the next two months. If you should have any questions, pleat T ank ou,/// / Project Manager- Architect hesitate to call me. cc: EED MD/HJW 900 Welch Road, Suite 10 · Polo Alto, California 94304 · (650) 322-2121 · Fax: (650) 322-5029 State Conlraclors License Number 129060 ,JUN-28-2000 MON 01:41 PM H&S thc - ~TA - ~iDT FAX NO. 6503225029 ?. 01 TOT, AL 114. 24' BOx ,~' ~ L,L.S-~ . CAMPBELL TECH 6/2G/2000 1 Santa Clara Valley Water District 6 5750 ALMADEN EXPRESSWAY SAN JOSE, CA 95118-3686 TELEPHONE (408) 265-2600 FACSIMILE (408) 266-0271 www.scvwd.dst.ca.us AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER October 5, 1999 Mr. Kenneth Neumeister Huettig & Schromm Inc. 900 Welch Road, Suite 10 Palo Alto, CA 94304 Dear Mr. Neumeister: Subject: Santa Clara Valley Water District Access Gates at Campbell Technology Park, Permit 99935 Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) staffhas reviewed the chain link fence gate details sent to us on September 17. The center drop rod assembly as shown on the plan is acceptable; but problematic to the District in areas where the surrounding surface is unpaved. Soil tends to accumulate in the center stop making it difficult to operate the drop rod. To minimize this difficulty, we suggest that a small pad, perhaps 18 inches square, be installed, slightly raised, around the center stop. The locking mechanism used by the District is typically a padlock and chain assembly. The District will provide the lock. Thank you for providing the detailed drawings for the gates. I can be reached at (408) 265-2607, extension 2253. Sincerely, ORIGINAL SIGNED BY ~/"~Sue A. Tippets, P.E. Supervising Engineer Community Projects Review Unit CC.' ~ Haley Planning Department City of Campbell 70 North First Street Campbell, CA 95008 C~i~ recy¢~ec paper CITY OF CAMPBELL Community Development Department · Current Planning ]'tune 29, 1999 Mr. Kenneth Neumeister Huettig & Schomm, Inc. 900 Welch Road, Suite 10 Palo Alto, CA 94304 Re: Site and Architectural Review Committee - 6/22/99 535 Westchester Drive Dear Ken: The Site and Architectural Review Committee has conditionally approved your phasing, landscaping and fencing and architectural plans for the above referenced project for Building "C". This approval is subject to the following modifications: 1) Submittal of a modified roof screen detail for approval of the Community Development Director that incorporates wall materials and patterns. A concern was expressed that the corrugated metal pattern was not complementary to the contemporary building design; 2) Provide further clahfication that the pavemmt sections of the ent~ driveways will be ~ ~ m ~ ~t curb, and 3) Provide a statement of project phasing that the trees along the entry driveway and the landscaping adjacent to the mobile home park will be installed within one year of the landscaping for building "C". Please contact the undersigned if you should have any questions regarding these items. I may be reached at (408) 866-2144. Sincerely, Tim J. Haley Associate Hanner Kirk Hemrichs, Redevelopment Manager Linda Sm.nsen, TSH Architects SARC Committee Members 70 North First Street · Campbell, California 95008.1423 · TEL 408.866.2140 · r^X 408.866.8381 - 'mU 408.866.2790 City of Campbell -- Community Development Department 70 N. First Street, Campbell, CA 95008 MEMORANDUM To: From: Subject: File Tim J. Haley, Associate Planner~F Site and Architectural Review Com~nittec (SARC) Comments Campbell Technology Park Date: June 14, 1999 This note summarizes SARC comments of February 23, 1999 and staffs recommendations in response to the Committee's concerns. Additionally, a copy of the applicant' s response is attached. Phasing: The Committee expressed a concem that the phasing plan did not illustrate enough landscaping during initial phase along the entry drive and that phasing of landscaping was going to result in a disparity in project landscaping sizes. Staff suggest that all perimeter fencing and the landscaping buffer along thc mobile home park property line be installed during the initial phase. Additionally, 36" boxed trees should be planted along the private entry drive within one year of the landscaping installed with Building "C". Please submit a revised phasing plan illustrating all public improvements, park improvements and phased improvements as described above. It would be helpfid to describe all the items which would be constructed with the improvements of building "C". Roof Screening: The Committee asked that plans be submitted illustrating flint the roof ~notmted screening will be adequate. The plan show the height, extent of screening, and design details of proposed roof screens. As per the discussion with the applicant, the typical height of the mechanical units is 6' with a 1' to 2' variation in mounting restflting in a maximum height of the roof screen of 8'. A plan and elevation should be submitted illustrating and detailing tiffs concept. Building materials: The Committee requested that a sample board be provided wlffch illustrated the painted walls with texture, glazing and other materials proposed on the building. Please provide an actual painted wall sample which illustrates the building elevations with the various glazing types as well as the wall textures/colors. Applicant's Response: The applicant has responded per the attached letter dated May 12, 1999. This letter responses to the concerns expressed by the Committee at its meeting of March 23 1999 with the exception of continuing the landscape buffer along the mobile home park frontage. The applicant has indicated that this landscape area's improvement during phase one is problematic due to the availability of irrigation and electrictd se~wices and the need to transverse this are with construction equipment. Color elevations and sample boards will be l)resentc(I at the SARC meeting. Attachments: 1) 2) Letter dated May 12, 1999 Huettig & Scho~mn, Inc. KenNeumeister Reduced Elevations/Roof Screen cc: Sharon Fierro, Senior Planner Kirk Heinrichs, Redevelopment Manager Ken Neumeister, Project Manager, Huettig & Schronun, Inc. NEW BUSINESS 13. Award of Contract - Campbell Park Improvement Project and Approval of Budget Adjustment (Project 98-01) (Resolution/Roll Call Vote) Public Works Director Kass - Staff Report dated January 5, 1999. M/S: .Watson/Dougherty - to adopt Resolution 9483 awarding the contract for construction of the Campbell Park Improvement Project (98-01) to Valley Crest Landscape, Inc., authorizing the Public Works Director to execute the contract, and approving a budget adjustment. Motion adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers: Watson, Dougherty, Dean, Kennedy, Furtado NOES: Councilmembers: None 14. *Authorization to Issue Request for Proposals (RFP) for Consultant Services, Approval of Naming Process and Budget Adjustment - Winchester Drive-In Site Park (Resolutions (2)/Roll Call Vote) Public Works Director Kass - Staff Report dated January 5, 1999. M/S: Watson/Dean - that the City Council adopt Resolution 9484 authorizing the issuance of a Request for Proposals (RFP) for consultant services for the design of park improvements, directing staff to conduct a process for naming the park, and approving a budget adjustment, and that the Redevelopment Agency Board adopt Resolution 1999-1 approving a budget adjustment for the Winchester Drive-in Site Park. Motion adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: Council/Agency Members: Watson, Dougherty, Dean, Kennedy, Furtado NOES: Council/Agency Members: None COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS 15. City Councilmember Reports --Councilmember Dean reported that the West Valley Solid Waste Authority will be conducting a tour of the collection facility and invited all Councilmembers to attend. BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS 16. Appointments to Parks and Recreation Commission and Historic Preservation Board 1Vfinutes of 1/5/99 City Council Meeting 6 CITY OF CAMPBELL Community Development Department · Current Planning Date: December 28, 1998 To: Elizabeth Gibbons, Chair, SARC Mel Lindstrom From: Re: Tim J. Haley, Associate Planner Architectural Plans -- Campbell Technology Park - Winchester Drive-In Site Please find attached the plans for the above-referenced project for your early review. This item will be considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee at its meeting of January 12, 1999. If you require any further information, do not hesitate to contact me at (408) 866-2144. Thank you. 70 North First Street · Campbell, California 95008.1423 · ~L 408.866.2140 · FaX 408.866.8381 · 'rDD 408.866.2790 City of Campbell -- Community Development Department 70 N. First Street, Campbell, CA 95008 MEMORANDUM To: File From: Tim J. Haley, Associate Planner Subject: Architectural Advisor's Comments Campbell Technology Park Jeff's comments: Date: December 24, 1998 Arcade treatment is not incorporated into building design very well Need to provide details of roof screening materials A concern regarding the reflectiveness of the proposed glass The bullnose treatment and placement of concrete wall over glazing still appears awkward Exhibit C -- Conditions of Approval PD 96-06 - 535 Westchester/571 McGlincey Lane Page 1 The applicants are hereby notified, as part of this application, that they are required to meet the following conditions in accordance with the Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the State of California. The lead department with which the applicant will work is identified. Additionally, the applicants are hereby notified that they are required to comply with all applicable Codes and Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the State of California that pertain to this development and are not contained herein. SITE AND BUILDING DESIGN: 1. Approved Project: This approval is granted to construct a 280,000 square foot research and development complex of approximately 19.5 acres and the desig-nation of approximately 4.0 acres of public open space on the south side of the site on properties identified as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 412-29-007, 412-30-035,412-30-042 and 412-30- 043. Development shall be substantially as shown on the project and exhibit materials listed below, except as may be modified by conditions contained herein: (Planning) The proposed research and development use shall substantially comply with the use description provided in the applicant's letter dated February 10, 1997, except as modified to accommodate the 4 acre open space component. The proposed industrial uses shall be conducted entirely with the interior of the buildings and not in the parking area, driveways or landscape areas surrounding the buildings, except for the on site parking and loading. Exterior storage yards and exterior tank or processing areas are not permitted with this approval. Building use to be restricted to administrative and private offices, conference and training areas, and complementary engineering/research development, testing and assembly areas, including warehousing and shipping/receiving areas. B. Project plans prepared by TSH Architects (20 pages) dated 10/13/97. C. Project description by Huettig & Schromm dated 2/10/97. Revised Plans and Elevations: Revised elevations and/or site plan indicating the following changes: A. Site Plan: Landscaping along Highway 17 Frontage: Obtain an encroachment permit fi.om CALTRANS to install landscaping to infill existing openings along the Highway 17 frontage of the project. The applicant shall provide a maximum of 30 (15 gallon redwood trees) to achieve tree plantings 40-foot on center. Landscape Plan approval is required, prior to building occupancy and planting installation to be · completed within one year of building occupancy. In the event that the applicant is unable to obtain an encroachment permit fi'om CALTRANS, within the time specified then the applicant shall deposit funds with the City to cover the planting and installation of such trees, so that the City may pursue such permits. Exhibit C -- Conditions of Approval PD 96-06 - 535 Westchester/571 McGlincey Lane Page 2 o Fencing: The proposed fencing along Highway 17 frontage and southern property west of the proposed public street to be a black vinyl clad 6 foot to 8 foot high, cyclone fence. A final fencing plan to be approved by the Site and Architectural Review Committee in conjunction with the landscaping and irrigation plan prior to the issuance of building pe~rmits. B. Elevations: Applicant to refine the building elevations to increase the building plane offset of up to two (2) feet at the lower window elements and/or add an additional trellis element from the concrete wall features on Buildings A, B, and C, and to install additional pillar treatments or other structures or landscape elements to accentuate the entrance to Buildings A, B and D. The refined elevations to be approved by the Site and Architectural Review Committee (SARC) prior to the issuance of building permits. 2. Applicant shall extend the concrete parapet treatment at building comers where the radius "bullnose" treatment is shown. 3. All roof-mounted equipment to be screened by the proposed parapet walls or feature walls at the building entrances. Transportation Demand Management: Applicant to participate in a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program for future tenants and to incorporate participation in such program through the covenants, conditions and restrictions. This program to incorporate, but is not limited to the following: 1. Provision of Bicycle Parking Facilities. 2. Provision of on-site food service facilities. 3. Participation in shuttle/car pool service to public transit facilities such as light rail stations or park and ride lots when these facilities are constructed. 4. Accommodation of bus stop locations, if public bus service is provided to the site. Hours of Operation: Hours of operation of the industrial park shall be limited to 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. with the exception of the activities described below: (Plann/ng) Co Employee access to the site shall not be limited by hours of operation. Delivery hours shall be restricted per the project description. Trucking access is not permitted from 11 p.m. to 6:30 a.m. Operation hours of exterior activities (e.g. loading, unloading, outdoor recreation, etc.) to be limited to the hours of 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. for buildings C and D, located along the Exhibit C -- Conditions of Approval PD 96-06 - 535 Westchester/571 McGlincey Lane Pa~e 3 east property line adjacent to the mobile home park. D. Parking lot sweeping, landscape maintenance, or other exterior activities that make noise shall be limited to the hours of 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. weekdays. LANDSCAPING Landscaping Plan: Landscaping plan indicating .type and size of plant material and location and design of the irrigation system to be submitted to the Planning Department and approved by the Site and Architectural Review Committee prior to issuance of building permits. The minimum size of trees and shrubs planted on-site, except as modified by conditions contained herein, shall be as follows: mo The applicant shall install forty-four (44) 36-inch trees and the remainder of all trees shall include fifty percent 24-inch box and fifty percent 15-gallon sizes. Tree types for the parking area shall achieve a 30 foot height in their canopy. B. Shrubs shall be a minimum of 5 gallons with the exception of accent shrubs that may be a minimum of 1 gallon. C. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit a tree protection plan shall be submitted for all retained trees on the site. The landscape plan shall comply with the City's Water Efficient Landscape Standards (WELS). A WELS checklist shall be submitted with the final landscape plan. (Planning) Screening of Mobile Home Park and Project Entrance: The applicant shall install a minimum six foot pre-cast concrete or concrete block wall along the east property line adjacent to the mobile home park and north property line adjacent to the apartments. Walls at the project entrance shall be not exceed 42 inches in height except for screening walls behind landscaped entry. Walls along the pereol.afion ponds and in fi'ont of businesses shall be open or low and decorative less than 3.5 feet in height. The applicant shall submit a report from an acoustical engineer verif3,ing that the height and the materials of the proposed fence provides adequate sound attenuation as recommended by the SEIR. Tree Retention and Removal: Applicant to submit a tree protection plan prior to any grading and clearing of the project site. Any trees to be removed shall be replaced consistent with the WELS standards for tree replacement. STREET/SITE IM?RO~MENTS Parking and Driveways: All driveways and parking areas to be improved in compliance with Chapter 21.50 of the Campbell Municipal Code o Lighting Plan: Lighting from the site shall not spill over to adjoining properties. A lighting plan, indicating that lighting will not spill over to the adjoining properties, shall be MEMORANDUM ' CITY OF CAMPBELL To: Mayor and City Council Date: December 21, 1998 From: Subject: Bernard M. Strojny City Manager Sale of Winchester Drive-In Site In concurrence with the First Amended and Restated Disposition and Development Agreement approved by the City Council/Redevelopment Agency Board on November 17, 1997 the sale of the former Winchester Drive-In site to Campbell Technology Park LLC was completed on December 21, 1998. A report will be presented to the City Council/Redevelopment Agency Board at the January 19, 1999 Council meeting summarizing the disposition of the $7.5 million in sale proceeds. cc: Executive Team December 16, 1998 CITY OF CAMPBELL Ken Neumeister City Manager's Office · Redevelopment Division Huettig & Schromm, Inc. 900 Welch Road, Suite 10 Palo Alto, CA 94304 RE: Response to November 19, 1998 Letter R C gYED CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING BF..PT, Dear Ken, At our meeting on November 19~ you hand delivered a letter to me regarding some issues related to beginning development of the former Winchester Drive-In site. At your request, this letter is in response to your questions. Landscape Maintenance Agreement- Please find enclosed a draft Landscape Maintenance Agreement coveting the maintenance of landscaping proposed in the public fight-of-way. In summary, Campbell Technology Park is responsible for maintenance of al landscaping except that once the four acre park is developed, the street trees bordering the park will be maintained by the City. Public Improvement Agreement - Please fred enclosed a standard Public Improvement Agreement for public street improvements required as a part of the vesting tentative map. Final Map - Enclosed is a packet of information identifying what needs to be completed for approval of your Final Map and what needs to be completed to begin construction of public road improvements and building permit issuance from Public Works. Authorization for demolition and on-site grading can be granted prior to approval of final map. No access road improvements or building construction may begin prior to recordation of final map. Dedication and Easement Agreements - My understanding is that these agreements have been returned to Kevin Maple t give to the title company for preparation of the grant deeds. McGlincey Parcel Dedication - As discussed at our meeting, dedication of the public fight-of-way only is required. The remainder parcel would be retained by Campbell Technology Park, LLC in fee. Fencing at SCVWD Ponds - Fencing on commercial properties is reviewed by the Planning staff. It is typically reviewed considering aesthetic qualities and traffic view issues. As you know, staff still has a concern about proposed fencing in that we would 70 North First Street · Campbell, California 95008.1423 · TEL 408.866.2110 · F^X 408.379.2572 · TDD 408.866.2790 prefer to have a more "open" format incorporating landscaping to address your concerns for screening the perc ponds. We will continue to work with you in resolving this issue. In that the fencing is on private property, it can be separated from the public improvement package. City Park Schedule - In January, staff will be receiving authorization from City Council to hire a consultant to design the park and facilitate the public process. Under the preliminary schedule, we would expect construction to begin in January, 2000 and park completion by July, 2000. PG&E Easement at Park - The City acknowledges that Campbell Technology Park, LLC does not accept responsibility for development of the four acre park including utilities. Storm Drain - The City will work with you on phasing the storm drain work to the extent that you will need to work with our inspectors to ensure continuity for inspections. Occupancy cannot be granted until the storm drain is accepted by the City. 10. Storm Quality Control Measures - My understanding is that this issue has been resolved between Kevin Maples and Bill Helms. 11. San Jose Water - I haven't had much luck with Wayne Warren in getting a response. He told me he would call me two weeks ago with some information. I will continue to press the issue from my end. I suggest we schedule a face to face meeting with the Wayne Warren and Ed Mello yourself and me to clarify the issues and establish a time frame. 12. Ref'me Building Elevations - The "tweaking" of building elevations is scheduled before the SARC Committee on January 12~. Planning may ask for "arcl'fitectural' elevations that more clearly def'me the changes. Tim will likely be in contact with you. I am also continuing to work John Krug at PG&E to determine what can be done to of this project. I'll keep in touch. Y~g4{einrichs Redevelopment Manager enclosures: Michelle Quinney, City Engineer Bill Helms, Public Works Harold Housley, Public Works Tim Haley, Planning Recording Requested by: ) ) City of Campbell ) ) When recorded mail to: ) ) City Clerk ) City of Campbell ) 70 North First Street ) Campbell, CA 95008 ) (Space above this line for Recorder's use only.) AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT (identified as File No. made and entered into this _ __day of , 19 , by and between , hereunder referred to as "Owner," and the CITY OF CAMPBELL, a municipal corporation of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, hereinafter referred to as "City." WHEREAS, on , 19 the granted conditional approval of for that certain real property described in Exhibit A attached and incorporated as though fully set forth herein, and commonly known as (address) , which property is hereinafter referred to as "said real property"; WHEREAS, compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement are conditions to the approval of the above described Tentative Parcel Map; NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE-MENTIONED APPROVAL, and satisfaction of the conditions to that approval, (1) Owner shall provide, construct and/or install at his own proper cost and expense, street improvements as described in Section 11.24.040 of the City Code within 12 months from the date first mentioned hereinabove; provided, however, that in the computation of said 12 month period, delays due to, or caused by acts of God, viz., unusually inclement weather, major strikes, and other delays beyond the control of Owner or his successors shall be excluded. (2) It is expressly understood and agreed to that if Owner shall fail to complete the work required by this Agreement within the said 12 month period, the City, after giving ten (10) days written notice thereof to Owner, or his successors, may construct and/or install said improvements and recover the full cost and expense thereof from owner, or his successors. (3) Owner, or his successors, shall cause to be prepared at his cost and expense improvement plans for the construction and/or installation of said improvements prior to such construction or installation. Said plans shall be prepared by a civil engineer registered by the State of California and submitted to the .City Engineer for examination and approval. All of said improvements shall be constructed and/or installed in accordance with those plans approved by the City Engineer and shall be made under the supervision and inspection and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Said construction and/or installation shall be in accordance with the existing ordinances and resolutions of the City of Campbell and to all plans, specifications, standards, sizes, lines and grades approved by the City Engineer, and all State and County statutes applicable thereto. Upon completion and acceptance of the improvements by City, Owner, or his successors, shall provide reproducible as-built plans to the City Engineer. (4) The construction work of the improvements embraced by this Agreement shall e done in accordance with the specifications of the City of Campbell and West Valley Sanitation District of Santa Clara County, where indicated. (5) Prior to approval of the plans by the City Engineer pursuant to Section (3) of this Agreement, Owner, or his successors, shall pay to the City for examination of improvement plans, field inspection of construction of improvements and all necessary expenses incurred by City in connection with said improvements, a sum calculated in accordance with Resolution No. 9391, as adopted by the City Council on June 2, 1998, or as may subsequently be adopted by the City Council. (6) Owner, or his successors, shall file with City, prior to beginning construction, surety acceptable to the City in amount equal to the City Engineer's estimated cost of the street improvements to ensure full and faithful performance of the construction of all the aforementioned improvement work, excluding sanitary sewers and water distribution system. Said surety shall guarantee that Owner, and his successors, will correct any defects which may appear n said improvement work within one (1) year from the date of acceptance of the work by City and pay for any damage to other work resulting from the construction thereof, as well as pay the coSt of all labor and materials involved. This surety shall remain in effect until one (1) year after date of final acceptance of said improvements by City. Said surety amount may be reduced by the City Engineer after the date of final acceptance to not less than twenty-five (25) percent of its full value. (7) Upon final release of said surety by city, the obligations of Owner, and his successors, contained in this Agreement shall be considered null and void. (8) When called upon by City to do so, Owner, or his successors, will execute a petition for the formation of any special assessment district created pursuant to any special assessment act as provided in the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California created for the purpose of constructing and/or installing any or all of said improvements. 2 (9) Owner, or his successors, shall participate in and become a part of any special assessment district as described in paragraph (8) of this Agreement. It is expressly understood that any obligations of Owner, or his successors, contained in this Agreement that are accomplished t.o the satisfaction of said City Engineer by said special assessment district shall be considered null and void. (10) Owner, or his successors, shall make such deposits or file such bonds and enter into such agreement as required by West Valley Sanitation District of Santa Clara County to ensure the installation of a sanitary sewage system to serve said real property, and Owner, or his successors, shall file with City, upon execution of this Agreement, a letter from said Sanitation District stating that Owner, or his successors, have made such deposits or filed such bonds and entered into such agreements. (11) Owner, or his successors, shall pay to Pacific Gas and Electric Company any and all fees required for installation of underground wiring circuit to all electroliers within said real property when Owner, or his successors, is notified by either the City Engineer or the Pacific Gas and Electric Company that said fees are due and payable. Owner's, and his successors', obligations under this section shall not be relieved by delay or the passage of time, but shall remain binding indefinitely and forever. (12) Owner, or his successors, shall make such deposits or file such bonds and enter into such agreement as required by San Jose Water Company when called upon to do so to ensure the installation of a water distribution system to serve said real property, including fire hydrant. Owner's, and his successors', obligations under this section shall not be relieved by delay or the passage of time, but shall bind Owner and successors indefinitely and forever. (13) Any easement and right of way within or without said real property necessary for the completion of the improvements shown upon aforesaid improvement plans shall be acquired by Owner, or his successors, at his own cost and expense. It is provided, however, that in the event eminent domain proceedings are required for the purpose of securing said easement and right of way, Owner, or his successors, shall deposit or cause to be deposited with City a sum covering the reasonable market value of the land proposed to be taken and to be included in said sum shall be a reasonable allowance for severance damages, if any. It is further provided that in addition thereto such sums as may be required for legal fees and costs, engineering and other incidental costs shall be deposited with the City. (14) Ow. ncr, or his successors, shall carry out any and all negotiations with all interested parties and shall perform or cause to be performed at his own cost and expense and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer any and all work required to abandon, remove, raise, lower, relocate and otherwise modify irrigation line or lines within the boundary of said real property. (15) To the fullest extent permitted by law,. Owner, and his successors, shall indemnify, defend and hold the City of Campbell, and its agents, employees, attorneys, officers, officials and assignees harmless from any and all claims, damages, losses and expenses, including, but not limited to, attorneys' fees, arising out of, or resulting from any negligent or intentional act or omission (including misconduct) of said Owner, or his successors, or any subcontractor, or anyone directly or indirectly employed by him, or anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable in the course of performance of the Agreement. The Owner, and his successors, shall also indemnify, defend and hold the City of Campbell, and its agents, attorneys, employees, officers, officials, and assignees harmless against and from any and all claims, demands, liabilities, losses, lawsuits, judgments, damages, costs and expenses (including, but not limited to, attorneys' fees and court costs, whether incurred at trial, appellate or administrative levels) which the City of Campbell may incur or suffer, or to which the City of Campbell may be subjected resulting from the failure of Owner, or his successors, or his agents, employees, subcontractors, or anyone performing services under him, to fulfill any of the obligations imposed under this Agreement. (16) It is acknowledged that the provisions of this Agreement constitute covenants for the improvement of the subject real property for the mutual benefit of Owner's property, commonly known as (address) , and the City's property, commonly described as (street name) where it adjoins Owner's property. These covenants shall be considered to affect rights in the above-described real properties, and shall be binding on the heirs, assigns, successors, and grantees of Owner to said real property. (17) Nothing contained herein shall be construed to transfer any unvested interests in real or personal property for purposes of the rule against perpetuities. (18) In the event that Owner, or his successors, should breach any of the terms, conditions, or covenants of this Agreement, the City shall be entitled to recover, in addition to any other relief available in law or equity, all costs incurred in attempting to obtain enforcement of the Agreement, or compensation for such breach. These costs shall include reasonable attorneys' fees and court costs. (19) This is the entire Agreement between the parties, and there are no representations, agreements, arrangements or understandings that are not fully expressed herein. (20) This Agreement can be executed in counterparts by the parties hereto, and as so executed shall consist of one agreement, binding on all parties. (21) Owner shall provide and construct public street improvements per preliminary plans titled" ,' which are subject to approval by the City Engineer, prepared by IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said City has caused its name to be affixed by its Public Works Director and City Clerk, who are duly authorized by Ordinance 1951 adopted September 2, 1997, and said Owner has caused his name to be affixed the day and year fu'st above written. Owner CITY OF CAMPBELL Robert Kass, Public Works Director ATTEST: Anne Bybee, City Clerk (Attach Notary Acknowledgment for all parties) j :\forms\impnow(mp) STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA On be¥ore me, personally appeared (Notary Public) personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(les), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument, the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. (Signature of Notary Public) (This area for notarial seal) 6 Recording Requested by and When Recorded, Mail to: City of Campbell City Clerk's Office 70 North First Street Campbell, CA 95008 DRAFT (Space above this line for Recorder's use.) MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WHEREAS, WTA Campbell Technology Park, LLC (the "Owner") has been approved by the City of Campbell to construct a 280,000 square foot research and development business park on 19.58 acres (the "Development") as shown on Exhibit A of this Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Owner has agreed to construct full street improvements including landscaping and street trees, and dedicate to the City of Campbell (the "City") right-of-way as shown on Exhibit A of this Agreement extending north from McGlincey Lane through the Development and terminating at the northern terminus of Cristich Lane for the purpose of public street access to the Development (the "right-of-way"); and WHEREAS, the Owner will construct the Development on the portion of land north of the right-of-way and the Agency will retain ownership of the four acres on the southern portion of the right-of-way planned as a four acre park (the "Park"); and WHEREAS, landscaping as defined for purposes in this Agreement shall mean all trees, tree wells, shrubs, groundcover, and irrigation within the right-of-way (the "Landscaping"). WHEREAS, pursuant to Condition No.29 of Planned Development Permit No. 96-06, the Developer has agreed to enter into a landscape maintenance agreement (the "Agreement") to construct and maintain the Landscaping. NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned parties agree, represent, warrant and covenant as follows: Owner shall maintain the Landscaping in accordance with the maintenance specifications set forth in Exhibit B, which is hereinafter referred to as the "Work"; City may provide periodic maintenance inspections to ensue conformance with the intent of this Agreement. The Owner shall, to the fullest extent permitted by law, indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City of Campbell and its officers, agents, officials, volunteers, and employees from and against all claims, damages, losses and expenses, including, but not limited to, attorneys' fees, and court costs, whether incurred at the trial, appellate or administrative levels, arising out of or resulting from the performance of the Work by an intentional or negligent act or omission (including misconduct) of said Owner, any contractor/subcontractor, or. anyone directly or indirectly employed by any of them, or anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable. The Owner shall also indemnify and defend the City of Campbell against and shall hold the City of Campbell harmless of and from, all claims, demands, liabilities, losses, lawsuits, judgments, damages, costs, and expenses (including, but not limited to, reasonable attorneys' fees and court costs, whether incurred at the trial, appellate or administrative levels) which the City of Campbell may incur or suffer, or to which the City of Campbell may be subjected, to the extent caused by failure by the Owner to fulfill any or all of its obligations under this Maintenance Agreement. The City of Campbell shall, to the fullest extent permitted by law, indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Owner and its officers, agents, officials, volunteers, and employees from and against all claims, damages, losses and expenses, including, but not limited to, attorneys' fees, and court costs, whether incurred at the trial, appellate or administrative levels, arising out of or resulting from the performance of the Work by an intentional or negligent act or omission (including misconduct) of the City of Campbell, any contractor/subcontractor working for the City, or anyone directly or indirectly employed by any of them, or anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable. The City of Campbell shall also indemnify and defend the Owner against and shall hold the Owner harmless of and from, all claims, demands, liabilities, losses, lawsuits, judgments, damages, costs, and expenses (including, but not limited to, reasonable attorneys' fees and court costs, whether incurred at the trial, appellate or administrative levels) which the Owner may incur or suffer, or to which the Owner may be subjected, to the extent caused by failure by the City of Campbell to fulfill any or all of its obligations under this Maintenance Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, (1) in no event shall City be liable for any intentional or negligent acts or omissions of Owner, any of Owner's contractors or subcontractors, or anyone directly or indirectly employed by any of them, or anyone for whose acts any o them may be liable, and (2) in no event shall Owner be liable for any intentional or negligent acts or omissions of City, any of City's contractors or subcontractors, or anyone directly or indirectly employed by any of them, or anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable. Owner shall maintain insurance with respect to the pedestrian pathway and planter strip Work conforming to the following specifications: a. Minimum Scope of Insurance Coverage shall be at least as broad as: (1) Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage "occurrence" form CG 0001 (ed. 11/85), a copy of which can be obtained from the i~epartment of Public Works; (2) Insurance Services Office form number CA 001 (ed. 1/87) covering Automobile Liability code 1 "any auto", a copy of which can be obtained from the Department of Public Works; and (3) Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the Labor Code of the State of California and Employers Liability Insurance. b. Minimum Limits of Insurance Owner shall maintain limits no less than: (1) General Liability: $1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence for bodily, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form where a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice thc required occurrence limit. Co do (2) Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage. (3) Workers' Compensation and Employers' Liability: Workers' compensation limits as required by the Labor Code of the State of California and Employers' liability limits of $1,000,000 per accident. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and reasonably approved by the City based on commercially reasonable standards. At the option of the City based on commercially reasonable standards, either: the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the Owner shall produce a bond guaranteeing payment of losses, related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses. Other Insurance Provisions (1) Additional Insured Endorsement The policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: (a) The City, its officers, employees and volunteers are to be covered as insured a~ respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Owner, products and completed operations of the Owner, premises owned, occupied or used by the Owner, or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Owner. The coverage shall contain no limitations' on the scope of insurance protection afforded to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. (b) The Owner's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be excess of the Owner's insurance and shall not contribute with it. (c) This certificate shall clearly state as follows: The City, its officers, employees and volunteers are to be covered as insured as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Owner, products and completed ol~c~ations of the Owner, premises owned, occupied or used by the Owner, or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Owner. This coverage shall be primary and any coverage carried by additional insured shall be excess insurance only. (d) The Owner's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. Insurance coverage in the minimum amounts set forth herein shall not be construed to relieve Owner for liability in excess of such coverage, nor shall it preclude the City from taking such other actions as are available to it under any other provision of the contract or otherwise in law. (2) Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability Coverage The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers for losses arising from work performed by the Contractor for the City unless it results from negligence of City. (3) All Coverages 4 (a) Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, cancelled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days grior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City. Co) Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policies shall not effect coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. (c) Acceptability of Insurers Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a Best's rating of no less than B:VII, unless written approval is obtained from the City for the insurance with a lesser rating. (d) Insurance must be issued by a company or companies authorized to transact business in the State of California. (4) Verification of Coverage (a) Owner shall furnish the City with certificates of insuianc¢ with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The certificates and endorsements are to be on forms reasonably acceptable to the City. Where by statute, the City's workers' compensation-related forms cannot be used, equivalent forms approved by the Insurance Commissioner are to be substituted. All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. The City reserves the right to require complete certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time. The terms, conditions and covenants of this Maintenance Agreement are mutually beneficial and shall run with the land, and shall be binding on the heirs, assigns and successors of Owner and City; This Maintenance Agreement contains the entire agreement of the parties hereto. There are no representations, agreement, arrangements, or understandings, oral or written, between and among the parties hereto, relating to the subject matter contained in this agreement, which are not fully expressed herein. Any and all amendments hereto shall be in writing executed by the parties hereto; 11. 10. Each and every party to this Maintenance Agreement has been represented by an attorney at law of his/her choosing, and represents that he/she has read and fully understands the terms, conditions and covenants contained herein, and that each of the attorneys has read and approved this Maintenance Agreement as to form and content; In the event that a law suit is commenced by any party to this Maintenance Agreement to enforce its terms, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable costs and attorneys fees incurred as a result of such action; This Maintenance Agreement can be executed in counterparts, by the parties hereto, and as so executed shall constitute one agreement, binding on all the parties. Owner shall file security, acceptable to the City, in an amount equal to the City Engineer's estimated cost to ensure full and faithful performance of all maintenance work as described in Exhibit B. Said security shall guarantee that the Owner will correct any defects within 30 days from the date the Owner is notified by the City. The security shall remain in effect for two years from the date of the written Notice of Acceptance of the Landscaping improvements for the Campbell Technology Park Parcel Map, Recording No. This agreement shall remain in effect in perpetuity from the date of the written Notice of Acceptance of the improvements for the Campbell Technology Park Parcel Map, Recording No. ; except that the Owner is relieved of its maintenance obligations under this Agreement after two years for Landscaping within the southern half of the right-of-way adjacent to the Park as shown on Exhibit A. Dated: Dated: Campbell Technology Park, LLC BY: TITLE: (Attach Notary) CITY OF CAMPBELL, a municipal corporation BY: Robert Kass TITLE: Public Works Director Approved As To Form William Seligmann City Attorney h:\agr\summerfd(mp) 7 ! s Ifil i,JL, / / EXHIBIT B MAINTENANCE SPECIFICATIONS FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY LANDSCAPING RELATED TO CAMPBELL TECHNOLOGY PARK PARCEL MAP RECORDING NO. Prepared by Public Works Department City of Campbell SECTION 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS It is the intent of the City to require a high level of quality in maintenance consistent with standard industry practice. Owner and/or contractor performing maintenance shall ensure that all work under this specification is performed by technically qualified and skilled personnel. There shall be one person who will act as the designated person that City representatives may contact. The name and 24 hour/7 day a week phone number shall be provided to the City Public Works Superintendent. The City may conduct inspections and direct the owner to perform additional work or services required to bring the contractor's performance to the level defined by this specification. Owner shall cooperate with the City's representative in determining conformity with the provisions of this specification and the adequacy of the work being performed. If Owner and/or contractor does not dutifully fulfill the intent of this maintenance specifications, the City retains the right to hire other contractor(s), of its choosing, to correct and fulfill the maintenance requirements of the pedestrian pathway and planter strip. Any costs incurred by the City for the services provided shall be paid by Owner. The City may also charge Owner reasonable administrative and labor costs associated with mana?:~ ~l~e maintenance work performed. The City shall give Owner at least ten days notice b~,,x~ hiring other contractors except in case of emergency where public safety may be jeopardized. At the request of either party, there shall be a review of the maintenance specifications to determine if modifications are necessary or desirable. Owner shall arrange for and pay all costs associated with installing, providing and using electrical and water services for fulfillment of this agreement. Owner shall also be responsible for all costs associated with retirement of all electrical and water services upon completion of this agreement, if so directed by City. Ae SECTION 2. LANDSCAPING Materials The following shall apply to the materials used by Owner/contractor under this specification: 1. Fertilizers shall be complete, furnishing the required percentage of N, P, K, and trace elements to keep trees, shrubs and other plants in a healthy growing condition. Insecticides, fungicides, herbicides and rodenticides shall be obtained and applied in full compliance with all applicable legal requirements and good practice under the direct supervision of a licensed pesticide adviser by a licensed applicator. 3. Tree stakes, tree ties and guy wires shall be per City standards as agreed to with City representatives. Replacement plant materials shall be of a size, condition and variety specified by City representatives and consistent with the City's authorized planting lists as provided in the approved construction plans for said development. B. Tree, Shrub and Groundcover Care Owner/contractor shall maintain all trees and shrubs on the site covered by this specification in a healthy, growing condition by performing the following maintenance and other work incidental thereto all in accordance with commercially reasonable standards: Watering of trees, shrubs and groundcover shall be accomplished deeply and slowly so as to establish moisture to the full depth of the root zones. Watering shall be done in a manner to avoid erosion of soil, excessive mn-off or ponding of water, or creating a water-logged soil condition. Owner/contractor shall furnish and set out hoses a~, ~ sprinkler irrigation systems when and where necessary to ensure watering cove~,~;,~. The water basis must be maintained of such size around young trees to ensure that enough water can be applied to establish moisture through the major root zone. A water wand shall be used to break the water force when hand watering. Water basins shall be opened during the rainy season to allow for proper drainage away from root crown. 3. Owner/contractor shall ensure that pruning is done only be professionally qualified personnel using approved methods and techniques. a. Excessive pruning or stubbing back shall not be permitted. b. All pruning cuts shall be flush and shall be cleanly cut with no tearing of the bark. 4. Pruning of trees, shrubs and hedges shall be done as needed to achieve the following: a. To shape, particularly to correct misshaping caused by the wind. b. To raise the lower branches of trees above head height wherever they overhang walks and paths. c. To cut back shrubs and groundcover where they encroach on the walks, paths, paved areas, buildings and retaining walls. d. To remove suckers, watersprouts and other undesirable growth on trees. e. To remove all dead or damaged branches. f. To remove any hazardous conditions. 5. Owner/contractor shall be responsible for pest control on all trees, shrubs and groundcover. Snails and slugs shall be controlled by use of an approved non-arsenical metaldehyde bait as prescribed by a Pest Control Advisor. 6. All tree, shrubs and groundcover areas shall be kept reasonably free of weeds. Weeding may be accomplished manually or by the use of pre- and post-emergent herbicides. Herbicide applications shall be done only in strict accordance with Federal, State and local rules and regulations. At no time shall weeds exceed two inches in height. 7. All trees, shrubs and groundcovers shall be fertilized twice each year, spring and fall. 8. Owner/contractor shall maintain mulching at a nominal depth of two inches in planting areas that are shown to be mulched on the approved plans. Mulching material m:~, ~e of redwood compost, coarse redwood sawdust, chipped woody material or other a[,iJ~,J ~ materials. All mulching materials must be consistent and of like materials. 9. Any rock areas and bare ground areas shall be maintained in a reasonably weed-free condition by use of pre- and post-emergent herbicides and/or by manual removal. 10. All trees and shrubs intended to act as a visual screen must be maintained in such a manner as to provide the screening effect. Co Irri~ation System 1. Complete irrigation operational and coverage checks must occur regularly to assure proper water delivery to the planting. All needed repairs must be accomplished prior to the irrigation cycle. 2. The automatic controller must be set and programmed so as to account for seasonal changes in water requirements and to account for drought restrictions when necessary. 3. The addition of new above-ground irrigation heads should be avoided; pop-up type heads and/or drip irrigation should be used in all new installations and in pedestrian travel areas. 4 o Irrigation cycles shall be set for watering during the evening or early morning time periods, and in accordance with the City's drought restriction policies. All irrigation boxes must be maintained in proper condition so as to not pose a safety hazard to equipment or pedestrians. All box lids must be kept in place and secured when maintenance is not taking place. Upon expiration of the agreement, all irrigation systems shall be retired unless otherwise directed by the City. D. General Maintenance and Clean-Up 1. The contractor shall collect all clippings, trimmings, cuttings, litter, rubbish and debris from the site and dispose of at Owner's/contractor's cost. All areas around shrubs and trees, and areas next to fences and walkways shall be swept as required to keep path reasonably free of weeds, grasses, rocks, glass and other debris. This work shall be accomplished by hand sweeping or mechanical sweeping. 3. The area shall be maintained in a reasonably "litter-free" state with regular routine maintenance. Any eroded places on the landscaped areas shall be repaired by the addition of top soil so as to bring such eroded places back to an acceptable grade. The cause of such erosion must be corrected as soon as practicable but not more than fifteen (215) calendar days from being discovered and/or reported. 5. All hazardous or unsafe conditions must be addressed and/or corrected with due diligence. Leaf litter in landscaped areas and walkways must be removed as soon as practically possible. At no time shall the accumulation of leaf litter be allowed to pose a hazard to pedestrians or limit full access to the site by disabled persons. SSRedev\maintagr December 15, 1998 .o¥'C44f,a CITY OF CAMPBELL Public Works Department DEC 1'~ Mr. Kenneth A. Neumeister Huettig & Schromm, Inc. 900 Welch Road, Suite 10 Palo Alto, CA 94304 Re.' Campbell Technology Park 535 Westchester Drive Dear Mr. Neumeister: In response to your request regarding what actions must be taken to record the parcel map and receive clearance by the Public Works Department for issuance of building permits for the above-referenced property, we provide the following summary: PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE PARCEL MAP AND CLEARANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS THE APPLICANT MUST: 1. Provide a completed final parcel map in compliance with the Subdivision Map Act. Acquire all public right-of-way, including deeds and easements, for public street and public storm drain purposes. Obtain written clearance from the Planning Division. Obtain written clearance from the Central Fire Protection District. Provide conditions, covenants, and restrictions as appropriate. Complete the worker's compensation information sheet. (form enclosed) Provide substantially complete street improvement plans. Provide completed on-site grading plans, including all items necessary for compliance with the NPDES general permit and local City ordinances. Provide a utility coordination plan. Provide a statement of subdivision security requirements from the County Tax Collector. 11. Provide a subdivision guarantee from the title company. 12. Provide a non-interference and easement approval letters from the utility companies and public entities. 13. Provide a clearance letter from the Santa Clara Valley Water District. 14. Execute the landscape maintenance agreement and provide insurance, fees, and security. 4. 5 6. 7. 8. 70 North First Street · Campbell, California 95008. 1423 - TEL 408.866.2150 - FAX 408.376.0958 · TDD 408.866.2790 15 16. 17. 18. 19. Execute a street improvement agreement and post a labor and materials bond and a faithful performance bond, each in the amount of. .......................$989,000.00 (bond forms and agreement attached) Post the construction emergency refundable cash deposit in the amount of ...................................................... $ 10,000.00 (4% of the Engineer's estimate) Pay the storm drain area fee in the amount of .................... $ 47,475.00 ($2,500/acre) Post the monumentation refundable cash deposit security in the amount of ............................................ $ 10,000.00 Post the plan check and inspection fee deposit in the amount of. ..................................................... $ 79,120.00 (8% of the Engineer's estimate) Following completion of the above, Public Works will agendize the approval of the final parcel map and acceptance of public right-of-way for the next available City Council meeting. Following Council approval and recordation of the final parcel map, Public Works will release clearance to the Building Division for building permits for the site. (Please be reminded the Building Division may also have other requirements prior to actual release of the building permits.) B. PRIOR TO ANY WORK ON THE NEW PUBLIC ROADWAYS, THE FINAL PARCEL MAP MUST BE RECORDED AND AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT ISSUED FOR THE WORK. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS MUST BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Provide an encroachment permit from the County of Santa Clara. (for work within the County at the Curtner/McGlincey intersection). Provide a permit from the Santa Clara Valley Water District (required for any work within 500' of their property or facilities). The contractor's signature must be a~lded to the permit application (front and back). The contractor must provide a Worker's Compensation Insurance Information Sheet. (form enclosed) The contractor must provide a Certificate of Insurance with Additional Insured's Endorsement. (sample enclosed) The applicant must provide one mylar set and six blueline sets of public improvement plans signed by licensed engineer, and stamped by the City "APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION". Following completion of the above, the City Engineer will sign and issue the encroachment permit. If you have any questions regarding any of the above, please contact Harold Housley, Land Development Engineer, at (408)866-2158. Sincerely,~/ ~/5/ ~/ Land l~evelopment E~g~'neer Attachments: Workers' compensation forms (2) Faithful Performance Bond Labor & Materials Bond Street Improvement Agreement Engineer's Construction Cost Estimate Sample Certificate of' Insurance cc~ Kirk Heinrichs Kevin Maple, HMH LD File - 535 Westchester Drive H:\WORD\LANDDEV\535WELTR(JD) WORKER'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE INFORMATION The following worker's compensation insurance information is required for all Applicants and Contractors. One of the following items for each Applicant and Contractor must be submitted prior to working under a Public Works permit or contract. WORKERS' COMPENSATION INFORMATION: Name of Contractor/Applicant [] A Certificate of Consent to Self-Insure issued by the Director of Industrial Relations; OR [] A Certificate of Workers' Compensation Insurance Insurance Co. Policy No. Expiration Date ; OR A signed Certificate of Exemption from the Workers' Compensation laws as printed below. CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION I certify that in the performance of the work for this contract, I shall not employ any person in a manner so as to become subject to the Workers' Compensation Laws of California. Signed Date Title NOTICE TO APPLICANT/CONTRACTOR: If after signing this Certificate of Exemption, you should become subject to the Workers' Compensation provision of the Labor Code, you must forthwith comply with such provisions or the Permit or Contract will be cancelled or revoked. j:\forms\workcomp(rev6/96) BOND FOR FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE We, the undersigned WTA - CAMPBELL TECHNOLOGY PARK, LLC , (hereinafter "Contractor ") and , a corporation organized under the laws of the State of , and authorized to transact business in the State of California, as Surety, are obligated to the City of Campbell, (hereinafter "City") a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of California, in the sum of NINE HUNDRED EIGHTY-NINE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($ 989,000.00 ) for the payment of which sum we obligate ourselves and our successors and assigns, jointly and severally by the following provisions: The condition of this obligation is: Bemuse the obligated Contractor has, on , 19 , entered into written Contract with the City for the Project, a copy of which contract is attached and made a part of this bond, tbr "TS 97-01, PD 98-06, 535 WESTCHESTER DRIVE, 571 MC GLINCEY LANE, ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NO. 98-219" . Now, therefore, if the Contractor shall t~thfully perform the work in accordance with the plans, specifications and contract documents during the original term, and any extensions of the contract which may be granted by the City, with or without notice to the surety, and if it shall satisfy all claims and demands incurred under the contract, and shall fully indemnify and save harmless the City from all costs and damages which it may suffer by reason of failure to do so, and shall reimburse and repay the City all outlay and expense which the City may incur in making any default, then this obligation shall be void; otherwise to remain in full force and effect. If any legal action be filed upon this bond, it shall be filed within one year after final payment has been made under the Contract excluding the warranty period, it' any, provided for in the Contract, and venue shall lie in the County of Santa Clara, State of California, and that surety, for value received stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the Contract or to the work to be performed under it or the specifications accompanying it shall in any way affect its obligation on this bond, and it does by this means waive notice of any change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the Contract or to the work or to the specifications, and thereby waives the provisions of Section 2819 of the Civil Code of the State of California. In witness, the parties have executed this agreement as of ,19 WTA - CAMPBELL TECHNOLOGY PARK, LLC By Title (Surety) By Address of Surety: (Attach Acknowledgements) (Both Principal's and Surety's Attorney in Fact) Surety's Bond Number (Accompany this bond with Attorney-in-fact's authority from Surety to execute the bond, certified to include the date of the bond.) h:landdev\535west6(mp) BOND FOR LABOR AND MATERIAL We, the undersigned WTA - CAMPBELL TECHNOLOGY PARK, LLC (hereinafter "Principal") and , a corporation organized under the laws of the State of , and authorized to transact business in the State of California, as Surety, are obligated to the City of Campbell (hereinafter "City"), a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of California, in the sum of NINE HUNDRED EIGHTY-NINE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($ 989,000.00 ) for the payment of which sum we obligate ourselves and our successors and assigns, jointly and severally by the following provisions: The condition of this obligation is that the Principal entered, or is about to enter, into a certain written Contract with the City dated , 19 , , a true and correct copy of which is presently on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Campbell, which said Contract is hereby referred to and made a part hereof. The contract is entitled: "TS 97-01, PD 96-06, 535 WESTCHESTER DRIVE, 571 MC GLINCEY LANE, ENCROACHMENT PERMIT 98-219." Because Principal is required to furnish a bond in connection with the contract, providing that if Principal, or any of its subcontractors, shall fail to pay for any materials, or other supplies, or for any work or labor on the contracted work of any kind, or for amounts due under the unemployment insurance act with respect to any work or labor on this project, the Surety on this bond will pay for the debt, in an amount not exceeding the sum specified in this bond, and also, in case suit is brought upon the bond, a reasonable attorney's fee to be fixed by the court. Now, therefore, we, WTA - CAMPBELL TECHNOLOGY PARK, LLC , as Principal, AND , as Surety, are obligated to the City of Campbell, in the sum of $ NINE HUNDRED EIGHTY-NINE THOUSAND DOLLARS , ($989,000.00) lawful money of the United States, for the payment of which sums will and truly to be made, we the said Principal and Surety bind ourselves, successors and assigns, jointly and severally, by these provisions. The condition of this obligation is that if Principal, its successors or assigns, or its subcontractor, or subcontractors, shall fail to pay for any labor, materials, or other supplies, used in the performance of the work contracted to be done, or for amounts due under the unemployment insurance act with respect to this work or labor, then the Surety on this bond will pay for them, in an amount not exceeding the sum specified in this bond, and in case suit is brought upon this bond will also pay a reasonable attorney's fee, to be fixed by the court. No prepayment or delay in payment and no changes, extensions, addition or alteration of any provision of said Contract or in any plans and specifications referred to herein, and no forbearance on the part of the City shall operate to release the Surety from liability on this bond, and consent to make such alterations without further notice to or consent by the Surety is hereby given, and the Surety hereby waives the provisions of Section 2819 of the Civil Code of the State of California. In witness, the parties have executed this agreement as of , 19 WTA - CAMPBELL TECHNOLOGY PARK, LLC By: Its: (Surety) By Address of Surety:. (Attach Acknowledgments) (Both Principal's and Surety's Attorney in Fact) h:\landdev\535west7(mp) Surety's Bond Number (Accompany this bond with Attorney-in-fact's authority from Surety to execute the bond, certified to include the date of the bond.) Recording Requested by: City of Campbell When recorded mail to: City Clerk City of Campbell 70 North First Street Campbell, CA 95008 (Space above this line rbr Recorder's use only.) STREET IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT (identified as File Nos. TS 97-01 and PD 96-06 made and entered into this day of , 19 , by and between _ WTA - CAMPBELL TECHNOLOGY PARK, LLC , hereunder referred to as "Owner," and the CITY OF CAMPBELL, a municipal corporation of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, hereinafter referred to as "City." WHEREAS, on November 18, 1997 and on December 8, 1997 the City Council granted conditional approval of TS 97-01 and PD 96-06 for that certain real property described in Exhibit A attached and incorporated as though fully set forth herein, and commonly known as 535 Westchester Drive and 571 McGlincey Lane , which property is hereinafter referred to as "said real property"; WHEREAS, compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement are conditions to the approval of the above described Tentative Subdivision and Planned Development; NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE-MENTIONED APPROVAL, and satisfaction of the conditions to that approval, (1) Owner shall provide, construct and/or install at his own proper cost and expense, street improvements as described in Section 11.24.040 of the City Code within 12 months from the date first mentioned hereinabove; provided, however, that in the computation of said 12 month period, delays due to, or caused by acts of God, viz., unusually inclement weather, major strikes, and other delays beyond the control of Owner or his successors shall be excluded. (2) It is expressly understood and agreed to that if Owner shall fail to complete the work required by this Agreement within the said 12 month period, the City, after giving ten (10) days written notice thereof to Owner, or his successors, may construct and/or install said improvements and recover the full cost and expense thereof from owner, or his successors. (3) Owner, or his successors, shall cause to be prepared at his cost and expense improvement plans for the construction and/or installation of said improvements prior to such construction or installation. Said plans shall be prepared by a civil engineer registered by the State of California and submitted to the City Engineer for examination and approval. All of said improvements shall be constructed and/or installed in accordance with those plans approved by the City Engineer and shall be made under the supervision and inspection and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Said construction and/or installation shall be in accordance with the existing ordinances and resolutions of the City of Campbell and to all plans, specifications, standards, sizes, lines and grades approved by the City Engineer, and all State and County statutes applicable thereto. Upon completion and acceptance of the improvements by City, Owner, or his successors, shall provide reproducible as-built plans to the City Engineer. (4) The construction work of the improvements embraced by this Agreement shall be done in accordance with the specifications of the City of Campbell and West Valley Sanitation District of Santa Clara County, where indicated. (5) Prior to approval of the plans by the City Engineer pursuant to Section (3) of this Agreement, Owner, or his successors, shall pay to the City for examination of improvement plans, field inspection of construction of improvements and all necessary expenses incurred by City in connection with said improvements, a sum calculated in accordance with Resolution No. 9391, as adopted by the City Council on June 2, 1998, or as may subsequently be adopted by the City Council. (6) Owner, or his successors, shall file with City, prior to beginning construction, surety acceptable to the City in amount equal to the City Engineer's estimated cost of the street improvements to ensure full and faithful performance of the construction of all the aforementioned improvement work, excluding sanitary sewers and water distribution system. Said surety shall guarantee that Owner, and his successors, will correct any defects which may appear in said improvement work within one (1) year fi.om the date of acceptance of the work by City and pay for any damage to other work resulting fi.om the construction thereof, as well as pay the cost of all labor and materials involved. This surety shall remain in effect until one (1) year after date of final acceptance of said improvements by City. Said surety amount may be reduced by the City Engineer after the date of final acceptance to not less than twenty-five (25) percent of its full value. (7) Upon final release of said surety by City, the obligations of Owner, and his successors, contained in this Agreement shall be considered null and void. (8) When called upon by City to do so, Owner, or his successors, will execute a petition for the formation of any special assessment district created pursuant to any special assessment act as provided in the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California created for the purpose of constructing and/or installing any or all of said improvements. (9) Owner, or his successors, shall participate in and become a part of any special assessment district as described in paragraph (8) of this Agreement. It is expressly understood that any obligations of Owner, or his successors, contained in this Agreement that are accomplished to the satisfaction of said City Engineer by said special assessment district shall be considered null and void. (10) Owner, or his successors, shall make such deposits or file such bonds and enter into such agreement as required by West Valley Sanitation District of Santa Clara County to ensure the installation of a sanitary sewage system to serve said real property, and Owner, or his successors, shall file with City, upon execution of this Agreement, a letter from said Sanitation District stating that Owner, or his successors, have made such deposits or filed such bonds and entered into such agreements. (11) Owner, or his successors, shall pay to Pacific Gas and Electric Company any and all fees required for installation of underground wiring circuit to all electroliers within said real property when Owner, or his successors, is notified by either the City Engineer or the Pacific Gas and Electric Company that said fees are due and payable. Owner's, and his successors', obligations under this section shall not be relieved by delay or the passage of time, but shall remain binding indefinitely and forever. (12) Owner, or his successors, shall make such deposits or file such bonds and enter into such agreement as required by San Jose Water Company when called upon to do so to ensure the installation of a water distribution system to serve said real property, including fire hydrant. Owner's, and his successors', obligations under this section shall not be relieved by delay or the passage of time, but shall bind Owner and successors indefinitely and forever. (13) Any easement and right of way within or without said real property necessary for the completion of the improvements shown upon aforesaid improvement plans shall be acquired by Owner, or his successors, at his own cost and expense. It is provided, however, that in the event eminent domain proceedings are required tbr the purpose of securing said easement and right of way, Owner, or his successors, shall deposit or cause to be deposited with City a sum covering the reasonable market value of the land proposed to be taken and to be included in said sum shall be a reasonable allowance for severance damages, if any. It is further provided that in addition thereto such sums as may be required for legal fees and costs, engineering and other incidental costs shall be deposited with the City. (14) Owner, or his successors, shall carry out any and all negotiations with all interested parties and shall perform or cause to be performed at his own cost and expense and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer any and all work required to abandon, remove, raise, lower, relocate and otherwise modify irrigation line or lines within the boundary of said real property. (15) To the fullest extent permitted by law, Owner, and his successors, shall indemnify, defend and hold the City of Campbell, and its agents, employees, attorneys, officers, officials and assignees harmless from any and all claims, damages, losses and expenses, including, but not limited to, attorneys' fees, arising out of, or resulting from any negligent or intentional act or omission (including misconduct) of said Owner, or his successors, or any subcontractor, or anyone directly or indirectly employed by him, or anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable in the course of performance of the Agreement. The Owner, and his successors, shall also indemnify, defend and hold the City of Campbell, and its agents, attorneys, employees, officers, officials, and assignees harmless against and from any and all claims, demands, liabilities, losses, lawsuits, judgments, damages, costs and expenses (including, but not limited to, attorneys' fees and court costs, whether incurred at trial, appellate or administrative levels) which the City of Campbell may incur or suffer, or to which the City of Campbell may be subjected resulting from the failure of Owner, or his successors, or his agents, employees, subcontractors, or anyone performing services under him, to fulfill any of the obligations imposed under this Agreement. (16) It is acknowledged that the provisions of this Agreement constitute covenants for the improvement of the subject real property for the mutual benefit of Owner's property, commonly known as 535 Westchester Drive and 571 McGlincey Lane , and the City's property, commonly described as Westchester Drive, McGlincey Lane and Campbell Technology Parkway where it adjoins Owner's property. These covenants shall be considered to affect rights in the above-described real properties, and shall be binding on the heirs, assigns, successors, and grantees of Owner to said real property. (17) Nothing contained herein shall be construed to transfer any unvested interests in real or personal property for purposes of the rule against perpetuities. (18) In the event that Owner, or his successors, should breach any of the terms, conditions, or covenants of this Agreement, the City shall be entitled to recover, in addition to any other relief available in law or equity, all costs incurred in attempting to obtain enforcement of the Agreement, or compensation for such breach. These costs shall include reasonable attorneys' fees and court costs. (19) This is the entire Agreement between the parties, and there are no representations, agreements, arrangements or understandings that are not fully expressed herein. (20) This Agreement can be executed in counterparts by the parties hereto, and as so executed shall consist of one agreement, binding on all parties. (21) Owner shall provide and construct public street improvements per preliminary plans titled" Public Improvement Plans for Campbell Technology Park, 535 Westchester Drive, Encroachment Permit 98-219 ," which are subject to approval by the City Engineer, prepared by HMH, Incorporated, 1570 Oakland Road, Ste. 200, San Jose, CA 95131. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said City has caused its name to be affixed by its Public Works Director and City Clerk, who are duly authorized by Ordinance 1951 adopted September 2, 1997, and said Owner has caused his name to be affixed the day and year first above written. WTA - CAMPBELL TECHNOLOGY PARK, LLC By: Title: CITY OF CAMPBELL Robert Kass, Public Works Director ATTEST: Anne Bybee, City Clerk (Attach Notary Acknowledgment for all parties) h:\agr\535westc(mp) STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA On before me, personally appeared (Nota_,~ Public) personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the insmnnent, the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. (Signature of Notary Public) (This area fomotarial seal) HMH, rporated CMl Engineers · Planners · Surveyors James T. H~ William J. VVagner, R.C.E. December 11, 1998 HMH 2332o02-31 Page 1 of 2 pages EXHIBIT "A-I" Real property situate in the City of Campbell, County of Santa Clara, State of California, being part of the North 10 acres of the East 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 and part of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 35, Township 1 South, Range 1 West, M.D.M., described as follows: Commencing at the most westerly corner of that portion described in the Deed from Winchester Drive-In Theatre, Inc. to Santa Clara County Flood Control and Water District recorded April 10, 1970 in Book 8885 of Official Records at page 541, Santa Clara County Records; Thence along the south line of said North 10 acres, North 89o50'00'' West, 688.81 feet to the southeasterly line of Cristich Lane (a 60 foot wide private street) to the True Point of Beginning; Thence, leaving said south line, North 50°33'30'' East, 429.50 feet; Thence along a tangent curve to the right having a radius of 272.50 feet, through a central angle of 118°01'30", for an arc length of 561.33 feet; Thence South 11 °25'00" East, 82.59 feet to the northerly line of said portion described in said Deed from Winchester Drive-In Theatre, Inc.; Thence along said northerly line, along a curve to the right from which the center bears South 31 °25'16" West, having a radius of 45.00 feet, through a central angle of 57044'40'', for an arc length of 45.35 feet to the south line of said North 10 acres; Thence along said south line, South 89o50'00'' East,' 20.00 feet to the easterly line of that 22.793 acre parcel shown on that Record of Survey recorded September 12, 1966 in Book 214 of Maps at page 18, Santa Clara County Records; Thence along said easterly line the following four courses: (1) North 00°23'14'' West, 362.48 feet; (2) Thence South 89o56'36" East, 3.54 feet; (3) Thence North 06°21 '02" East, 725.29 feet; (4) Thence North 07°21'02" East, 221.63 feet to the northerly line of said 22.793 acre 2332LD TG. 009 1570 OakJand Road, Suite 200 · P.O. Box611510 · San Jose, CA 95161-1510 · Tel: (408) 487-2200 · Fa~ (408) 487-?3?') December 11, 1998 HMH 2332-02-31 Page 2 of 2 pages parcel; Thence North 89°50'16" West, 224.66 feet to the southeasterly line of the parcel of land granted in the Deed from Ellen Scorsur to the State of California, for freeway purposes, recorded June 29, 1956 in Book 3537 of Official Records at page 478, Santa Clara County Records; Thence along said southeasterly line, the following two courses: (1) South 46020'20" West, 582.46 feet to the beginning of a non-tangent curve to the left, from which the center bears South 43039'38'' East; (2) Thence along said curve, having a radius of 3000.00 feet, through a central angle of 21 °14'57", for an arc length of 1112.60 feet to the south line of said North 10 acres; Thence South 89o50'00'' East, 352.32 feet to the True Point of Beginning. Said property is gernerally shown in the attached Exhibit "A-2" 2332LD TG. 009 0 100 zOO N89'50'16"W 224.66' GRAPHIC SCALE 1 INCH = 200 FT. / / / / / / , S89'56'56"E .~~;i ~o ~ "-- 3.s4' 688.81' 'd'\ I N00'25'14"W Sl~.2s'oo"[ \ i 82.89' ~-LI /' /'~1 , ,, ~ _ z.~,,~ S89'50 oo E ~,.o.c.//~f7 ~ ~ 20.00' ~..=. 57"44'40" .,~7 R=45.00' L=45.35' ,21-198 . ~ B . HMH, Incorporated 200' TG 1570 O~ND R0~, ~l~ 2~ DT P.O. BOX 611510 ~ ~ ~F~NIA 95161-1510 (408) 487-22~ FA~ (408) 487-2222 2332PL09 Submitted b~ PLAT TO ACCOMPANY DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT ".A-2" CITY OF CAMPBELL CALIFORNIA ~! HMH, In ,rporated Engineers · ~-~anners · Surveyors James T. ~ V~a'lr~m J. Wagner, R.C.E. November 5, 1998 HMH 2332-02-31 Page 1 of 1 pages EXHIBIT "A-3" OVER LANDS OF WTA - CAMPBELL TECHNOLOGY PARK Real property situate in the City of Campbell, County of Santa Clara, State of California, being a portion of Section 35, Township 7 South, Range 1 West, M.D.B. & M, described as follows: BEGINNING at a point in the northwesterly line of McGlincey Lane, as said line was established by Deed to the City of Campbell recorded July 29, 1964 in Book 6600 of Official Records at page 557, Santa Clara County Records, at the point of intersection of said northwesterly line with the quarter section line running north and south through the center of said Section 35; Thence, from said POINT OF BEGINNING, along the northwesterly line of McGlincey Lane, North 56055'00`' East, 133.43 feet to a point in the southwesterly line of that certain parcel of land described in the Deed from Steve Laptalo, et al, to Oden Snowden, et ux, dated July 25, 1952, recorded September 18, 1952 in Book 2490 of Official Records, at page 105, Santa Clara County Records; Thence along said southwesterly line, North 33°05'00'' West, 125.00 feet to the most westerly corner thereof; Thence parallel with said line of McGlincey Lane, South 56o55'00" West, 53.19 feet to said quarter section line; Thence along said line, South 00°23'14'' East, 148.54 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing an area of 0.2678 acres, more or less. And, generally shown upon ExhibitA-~, attached hereto and made a part hereof. 2332£D TG. 005 1570 Oakland Road. Suite 200 · P.O. Box611510 · San Jose. CA95161-1510 · Tel: (408)487-2200 · Fa~ (408) 487-2'~? LANDS 07 PETE~SEN Z O LANDS ZANARDI LANDS OFI -MARRONE' 0 15 50 GRAPHIC SCALE INCH = 30 FT. 0]2678 AC.+ LANDS OF WTA-CAMPBELL TECHNOLOGY PARK P.O.B. APN 41 30-042 571 :Y LANE EXHIBIT "A-4" 1/03/98 1'-3o' I / I I HMH, Incorporated -~ Ci~l E~ee~s. Pla. nm, rs. ~ P.O. BOX 6~o ~ ~ ~F~ 9~6~-~o -- (408) 487-22~ F~ (408) ~7-2222 LANDS OF S.C.V.W.D. SHEET 1 OF 1 PLAT TO ACCOMPANY DESCRIPTION TO THE CITY OF CAMPBELL OVER LANDS OF WTA - CAMPBELL TECHNOLOGY PARK POLICIES BELOW. COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGE co~ A INSUR~ 11/01/95 1U'3.0/96 ~ c~N~:u~. ,~-.~,~c~'m !s L000,000 , =,ccuc':".~.~)~p,c~,ac,. I ~ ,2.000,000 : ~-'~sc~. ,,~v. [Nju~, ~ s 1.000,000 -:~a cc,,,%~N ca s 1.000,000 UMBRELLA F~RM 11/01/95 1123,0/96 EACH Is 1.000,000 'INCLUDE .q r~ ROGATI ON CT.__AUSE 04/0L95 04/0U96 =_~c>~ ~:.=~'r !, 1.000.000 :~s~,.sE-..cucY, u,un', : s 1.000',000 :m~,.s~--=Jc~ ~.,.cY'~--- s 1.000.000 OTHF-q Re: Proje~/Pe~t Nnmher ad Location of Work. Al! work in public right-of-way. City of C~pbell, City of C~pbell Redeve!o~t Ag~t, its officers, ~ployees ~d vol~teers are n~ed as additional ~n~?red~ a~ r~~ liabilitv~e~ - ., ~- ~ ----. - .-~ .......... -, _. ~= .i iON ...... , .... ~.~w~Tv ~] ~CN OA~ ~ECF, THE ISSUING CCMPA,~ - ET ~-' - ,0 NOR~ ~T ~ ~ ' .-- I POLICY NUMBER: '.~MMERCIAL GE, NEFLAL [J~BILI'r~ THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. ADDITIONAL INSURED- OWNERS, LESSEES or CONTRACTORS [Form A] This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: COMMERCIAL GENE;::~AL LiABILiTY COVERAGE PART SCHEDULE Name of Person cr Organiz.~tion (Additional Insured): c~'Y OF CAMPBELL ATTN: DE,=T. OF PUBLIC W~RKS TO NORTH F~RST STREET CAMPeE~.J.~ CA 99008 Bodily Injur'/and Proper:'/D~-mage Liability RE: Lccadcn cf Covered Operations All work in p~bli-, riqht-of-way. City of Campbell, City of Campbell ReR~.ve!.opment A~e,.c~, its officers, employees and volunteers are named as additional inso.reds as respects liability per CG 2009. Premium Basis Rates (Per Cost $I000 of cost) Premium Total Advance Premium $ (If nc entU abpears al:ove, information required to complete this endorsement will be shown in the Declarations a.s ap,ciica;-.ie to this endorsement.) WHO IS AN INSURED (Secdcn Ii) is amended to ir, blume ~ an insured the l:erscn or organizazien (called 'additional insured' shown in the Sched- ule =ut only with res,coot, to liability arising cut of: A. 'Your work' for the additional insured(s)at the location designated aJ:cve, or B. ACs or omissions of the additional insured(s) in ccnnecticrt with their general supervision cf 'your work' at the location shown in the Schedule. With res!:ect to the insurance afforded these adCiticnai insureCs, the following additional ~rcvisions ac,~ly: A. None of the exclusions under Coverage A, excect exclusions (a), (d), (e), (0, (h2), (~, ~-r:,d (m), a~:cty to. this insur-a~,¢e. B. ACCiticnAi Exciusicns. This insurance does not ac.ciy to: (I) "Sccily Injuw' er 'prct:ert'/ damage' for which the additicnal insured(s) are ccfigated to ~ay damages by reason cf the assuml:;ticn cf liability in a cont..ct or agreement. T'nis exclusicn does not al:ply to liability for damages that the additional insured(s) would have in the absence of th, e o=ntrac*` or agreement. (2) 'Scdiiy injury' or "property damage" cccurri, ;ng (a) All work on the pmje¢.. (other than service, maintenance, or repairs) to be performed by or on behalf of the additional insured(s) at the site of the ¢=vered o~:erations has been com- I:;leted; or (b) That l:crfion of 'ycur-wcrk" cut of which injur/or damage arises has been put to its intended use by any I::emon or organization other than an- other contractor or subcontrAct, or engaged in performing o,cer~dons for a princ!.cal as a part cf the same ~rcjec*`. (3) 'Scdiiy injury' or 'pmcerty damage' arisir, cj cbt cf any ac*, or omission of the aCditicnaJ insured(s) or any of their em- ployees other than the generaJ sucervi- sion of work performed for the additional insured(s) by you. (4) 'Prccerty damage' to: (~) P.mperty owned, used cr occupied by or rented to the additional insured(s); (b) Property in the care, custody or con- trcl of the additional insured(s) or over which the additional insured(s) are for any puq::ose excedsing phys- ical control; or (c) 'Your work' for the ~_dditionaJ in- sured(s). roG. ¢_~._L3~ !! 85 ......... _C.¢~y.r}~ht. Insurance Service Office, Inc., 1984 Insured Name Policy # PRIMARY WORDING: ' SUI~JECT TO ALL OTHE~ TE~M$ AND FROVISIONS OF THE POLICY, SUCH INSUFIANCE AS PROVIDED BY THIS ~I;ORSEMENT SHALL BE D~ED PRIMARY, BUT ONLY WITH RE~PEG'T TO WORK PERFORMED BY OR FOR THE NAMED~ INSURED IN CONNECT[ON WITH THE AECVE DESCRIBED CONTRAS. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE Address: 535 WESTCHESTER DR. Date: 12/9/98 ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NO. 98-219 APPLICATION NO. ITEM UNIT PRICES FOR PROJECT AMOUNT NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY < $30 K $30 K to $150 K > $150 K $ AMOUNT I. SURFACE CONSTRUCTION MOBILIZATION I LS $ 750.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 66,200.00 $ 66,200.00 CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC CONTROL/PHASING 1 LS $ 100.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 CONSTRUCTION STAKING i LS $ 250.00 $ 350.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 15.000.00 CONSTRUCTION TESTING I LS $ 750.00 $ 500.00 $ 35,000.00 $ 35,000.00 II. DEMOLITION/CLEARING 1. CLEARING & GRUBBING I LS $500.00 $1,000.00 $10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 2. SAWCUT P.C.C./A.C.(UP TO 6') 125 LF $2.50 $3.00 $5.00 $ 625.00 3. P.C.C. REMOVAL 124 SY $30.00 $23.00 $10.00 $ 1,240.00 4. CURB AND GUTTER REMOVAL 214 LF $6.00 $3.00 $2.00 $ 428.00 5. MEDIAN REMOVAL SF $4.50 $2.25 $I .25 6. )EMOLISH EXISTING INLET/PLUG RCP'S EA III. ~ORM DRAINAGE 1. 12" R.C.P. (CLASS V) 309 LF $60.00 $40.00 $20.00 $ 6,180.00 2. 15' R.C.P. (CLASS III) LF $65.00 $48.00 $38.00 3. 18" R.C.P. (CLASS lII) 664 LF $70.00 $60.00 $52.00 $ 34,528.00 4. 24" R.C.P. (CLASS III) 366 LF $80.00 $68.00 $59.00 $ 21,59a.00 4a. 27: R.C.P. (CLASS III) 369 LF $71.00 $ 26,199.00 5. 30" R.C.P. (CLASS III) 1669 LF $90.00 $75.00 $65.00 $ 108,485.00 5a. 36" R.C.P. (CLASS III) 1365 LF $80.00 $ 109,200.00 6. T.V. INSPECTION (12') 4742 LF $1.20 $0.75 $0.60, $ 2,845.20 7. STD. DRAINAGE INLET I EA $1,600.00 $1,300.00 $1,000.00 $ 11,000.00 C.C. DETAIL 5) 8. FLAT GRATE INLET EA $1,400.00 $1,100.00 $900.00 C.C. DETAIL 6) 9. STANDARD MANHOLE 18 EA $2,000.00 $1,600.00 $1,300.00 $ 23,400.00 C.S.J. DETAIL D-I 1) INCLUDES FRAME & LID) 10. BREAK AND ENTER M.H./D.I. 2 EA $700.00 $550.00 $450.00 $ 900.{)0 11 3" THROUGH CURB DRAIN PIPES EA $500.00 $250.00 Page 1 ITEM UNIT PRICES FOR PROJECT AMOUNT NO. DESCRIPTION UNiT QTY < $30 K $30 K to $150 K > $150 K $ AMOUNT IV. CONCRETE IMPROVEMENTS I. SIDEWALK I0615 SF $6.50 $4.50 S2.75 $ 29,191.9.5 2. DRIVEWAY APPROACH 3285 SF $7.50 $5.50 $3.75 $ 12,318.75 3. CURB AND GUTTER 214 LF $22.00 $18.00 $15.00 $ 3,210.00 3a. CURB AND GUTTER W/CUTOFF 3075 LF $21.50 $ 66,112.50 4. VALLEY GUTTER SF $12.50 $10.00 $8.25 5. HANDICAP RAMP 12 EA $1,200.00 $800.00 $700.00 $ 8.400.00 6. TYPE B-I CURB LF $12.00 $9.50 $7.50 7. TYPE Al-B3 CURB 255 LF $15.00 $12.00 $10.{30 $ 2,550.00 8. COBBLESTONE MEDIAN SURFACE 821 SF S12.00 $8.00 $5.00 $ 4,105.00 9. P.C.C. DRIVEWAY CONFORM SF $7.00 $5.50 $,*.50 10. A.C. DRIVEWAY CONFORM SF $4.50 $3.75 $3.00 V. 'AVEME~I~ 1. ASPHALT DIGOUT AND REPLACE 2465 SF $5.00 $3.50 $2.50 $ 6,162.50 la. AC REMOVE & RESTORATION 104 CF $2.50 $ 260.00 2. PAVEMENT WEDGE CUT (6') 150 LF $5.00 $2.50 $1.50 $ 225.00 3. PAVEMENT GRINDING SF $0.80 $0.50 $0.35 4. PAVEMENT FABRIC (PETRO-MAT) 14 SY $2.00 $1.85 $1.50 $ 21.00 5. ASPHALT CONCRETE (TYPE A) 1705 T $80.00 $50.00 $35.00 $ 59,675.00 6. AGGREGATE BASE (CLASS 2) 308{~ T $40.00 $20.00 $12.00 $ 36,960.00 7. SLURRY SEAL (TYPE Il) SF $0.07 $0.06 $0.05 8. SLURRY SEAL (TYPE Ill) SF $0.11 $0.09 $0.07 VI. TRAFFIC SIGNALS/LIGHTS LS S97,500.00 S 97,500.00 I. DETECTOR LOOP (6' ROUND) EA $450.00 $300.00 $250.00 2. DETECTOR LOOP (6' x 30') EA $650.00 $540.00 $440.00 3. DETECTOR LOOP (6' x 50') EA $900.00 $750.00 $640.00 4,. ELECTROLIER 10 EA $2.600.00 $2,200.00 $1,800.00 $ 18,000.00 5. I 1/2' RIGID CONDUIT 1581 LF $9.00 $7.00 $5.00 $ 7,905.00 Page 2 ITEM UNIT PRICES FOR PROJECT AMOUNT NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY < $30 K $30 K to $150 K > $150 K $ AMOUNT 6 2' RIGID TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONDUIT LF $ 17.00 $ 13.00 $ 10.00 7 CONDUCTOR 4743 LF $ 0.70 $ 0.85 $ 0.45 $ 2,134.35 8 PULL BOX (NO. 3 I/2) 16 EA $300.00 $240.00 $185.00 $ 2,960.00 9 TRAFFIC SIGNAL PULL BOX (NO. 5) EA $400.00 $350.00 $300.00 10 PULL ROPE LF $0.55 VII. ~'TRIPING AND SIGNS 1. REMOVE PVMT. MARKINGS (PAINT) 162 SF $2.50 $1.50 $1.00 $ 162.00 2. REMOVE PVMT. MARKINGS (THERMO) SF $3.00 $2.00 $1.40 3. REMOVE PVMT STRIPING 455 LF $1.40 $0.80 $0.40 $ 182.00 4. ;TRIPING DETAIL 9 LF $1.35 $0.85 $0.35 4.5 STRIPING DETAIL 22 1592 LF $1.70 $0.60 $ 955.20 5. STRIPING DETAIL 29 SF $3.80 6. STRIPING DETA1L 32 SF $3.80 7. STRIPING DETAIL 37 (THERMO) 65 LF $1.85 $1.50 $1.00 $ 65.00 8. ;TRIPING DETAIL 38 (THERMO) 267 SF $3.80 $1.15 $ 307.05 9. STRIPING DETAIL 39 LF $1.50 $0.85 $0.45 10. STRIPING DETAIL 40 LF $2.20 $1.70 $1.00 11. LIMIT LINE 65 LF $1.35 $1.05 $0.90 $ 58.50 12. CROSSWALK, 12" WHITE 607 LF $1.35 $1.05 $0.90 $ 546.30 13. PAVEMENT MARKINGS (PAINT) SF $2.50 $1.90 $1.60 14. PAVEMENT MARKINGS (THERMO) 201 SF $5.50 $3.80 $2.60 $ 522.60 15. ~AVEMENT MARKER (NON-REFL.) EA $4.50 $3.00 $2.20 16. PAVEMENT MARKER (REFLECTIVE) 145 EA $6.00 $4.15 $3. I5 $ 456.75 17. TYPE K MARKER 2 EA $95.00 $80.00 $70.00 $ 140.00 18. TYPE N MARKER EA $95.00 $80.00 570.00 19. SALVAGE ROAD SIGN 3 EA $85.00 $75.00 $65.00 $ 195.00 20. RELOCATE ROAD SIGN 2 EA $100,00 $85.00 $75.00 $ 150.00 21. INST. RD. SIGN ON EXIST. POLE 5 EA $200.00 $145.00 SI IO.00 $ 550.00 22. ROAD SIGN WITH POST 24 EA $300.00 $240.00 $195.00 $ 4.680.00 23 INSTALL 1226S SIGN WITH POST EA $240.00 24 STANDARD BARRICADE LF $15.00 Page 3 ITEM UNIT PRICES FOR PROJECT AMOUNT NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY < $30 K $30 K to $150 K > $150 K $ AMOUNT VIII. LANDSCAPING I. IRRIGATION, PLANTING WORK I LF $1,575.00 $15,600.00 $ 15,600.00 2 PRUNE TREE ROOTS EA $125.00 $100.00 $85.00 3 TREE REMOVAL 4 EA $650.00 $500.00 $400.00 $ 1,600.00 4. ROOT BARRIER ( 12') LF $20.00 $10.00 $6.00 5. ROOT BARRIER (18') 720 LF $25.00 $15.00 $10.00 $ 7,200.00 6. STREET TREE (24' BOX) 77 EA $450.00 $325.00 $250.00 $ 19,250.00 7. STREET TREE (36' BOX) EA $700.00 $550.00 $400.00 8. TOP SOIL BACKFILL CY $15.00 9 IRRIGATION LS $1,300.00 , $675.00 IX. MISCELLANEOUS I. PEDESTRIAN BARRIER LF $75.00 $60.00 $50.00 la. SCVWD CONC. PAD lOOfl SF $8.00 $ 8,0~0.00 2. CHAIN LINK FENCE (6') LF $15.00 $11.50 $9.25 3. RAISE MISC. BOX TO GRADE EA $300.00 $200.00 $175.00 $ 175.00 4. RAISE MANHOLE TO GRADE EA $400.00 $275.00 $200.00 5. INSTALL MONUMENT BOX 9 EA $450.00 $350.00 $300.00 $ 2,700.00 6. MEDIAN BACKFILL CY $19.00 $17.00 $15.50 7 RESET BENCH MARK LS $150.00 SUBTOTAL $ 899,009.95 PREPARED BY: CRUZ S. GOMEZ ~ 10% SECURITY ENFORCEMENT FEE $ 89,901.00 REVIEWED BY: I. HAROLD HOUSLEY TOTAL ESTIMATE FOR FAITHFUL $988,910.95 APPROVED BY: MICHELLE QUINNE~ PERFORMANCE SECURITY $988,900.00 *See Section 66499.4 of the Map Act. h:\excel\landdev\539westc(mp) Page 4 December 15, 1998 Santa Clara Valley Water District 5750 ALMADEN EXPRESSWAY SAN JOSE, CA 95118-3686 TELEPHONE (408) 265-2600 FACSIMILE (408) 266-0271 www.scvwd.dst.ca.us AN EQUALOPPORTUNITYEMPLOYER Mr. Ken Neumeister Huetting and Schromm, Inc. 900 Welch Road, Suite 10 Palo Alto, CA 94304 Dear Mr. Neumeister: RECEfl/E'D CITY OF C,q pSF L[. PLANNING Subject: Campbell Technology Park The Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) has reviewed several drawings over the past few months for the roadway alignment from Westchester Drive to the Campbell Technology Park as it passes by two of the District's groundwater recharge ponds within the McGlincy Percolation System. We have also reviewed the design information for the concrete strip across Westchester Drive and a proposal to use dry wells for storm water control. The pond on the west side of Westchester Drive is known as Pond 5, the one on the east side is Pond 6. The ponds are typically allowed to go dry for cleaning purposes once a year. This cleaning operation begins at an access point west of Pond 5, hence the loaders (which are track mounted) and trucks exit Pond 5 crossing Westchester to begin operations on Pond 6. To minimize damage to the proposed road and limit any operations that may occur on the road, we have proposed construction of a concrete strip crossing Westchester Drive. Our staging area will also be relocated to the triangular piece of property on the north side of Pond 5. This necessitates relocation of the existing ramp on the south side of Pond 5. As a part of the earthwork for the Campbell Technology Park, we request that the new ramp be cut into the north side of Pond 5. The curb cuts for access to our ponds should be 18 feet wide. Eighteen-foot-wide double-swing gates should be provided. These gates should be set back from the curb a distance of 20 feet. This distance and the orientation may need to be adjusted during detailed design to allow for ample access around the back side of the gates to access the pond, particularly on Pond 6. A gate should also be provided at the south end of Pond 6, as vehicles will exit at the south end of the pond. There is a pipe between the two ponds crossing under Westchester Drive. The invert of this pipe will need to be field measured at both ends to determine its depth under the road. If its alignment conflicts with the proposed storm drain or other utilities, we can consider modifications to its design. As we have discussed in prior meetings, the distance between the top of the bank and the proposed fence needs to be maximized. The fence must be designed considering the close proximity of this water body and the maintenance activities that will occur next to the fence. Minor sloughing and erosion of the bank should also be considered. Typically, weekly access is needed to the pipe in Pond 5 that connects with Pond 6 to make measurements or adjust the valves. Adequate walking space needs to be provided at this location. C~ recycled paper ' Mr. Ken Neumeister 2 December 15, 1998 The concrete design should specify Class A Portland cement concrete. The same class concrete should also be used for the driveway approaches. The use of dry wells is prohibited. There are several dry wells in this area that were installed many years ago and the District is requiring removal of them as a part of the redevelopment of this area. As such, we would not entertain installation of new dry wells. In addition, the use of dry wells in areas of groundwater recharge is prohibited by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Construction drawings, along with legal plats and descriptions for the easement areas to be exchanged, must be sent to us for our review and approval. Upon approval of construction drawings, a District permit can be issued for the proposed construction. I can be reached at (408) 265-2607, extension 2253. Sincerely, Sue A. Tippets, P.E. Supervising Engineer Community Projects Review Unit CC~ Mr. Tim Haley Planning Department City of Campbell 70 North First Street Campbell, CA 95003 Public Works Department City of Campbell 70 North First Street Campbell, CA 95003 Mike Kotowski, 571 N. Harrison Avenue, Campbell, appeared before the City council and spoke in support of the staff recommendation. There being no one else wishing to speak, Mayor Watson closed the public hearing. Following discussion, M/S: Dean/Dougherty - that the City Council introduce Ordinance 1971 for first reading amending Chapter 13.04 of the Campbell Municipal Code entitled Park Regulations allowing model rockets with A or B engines to be launched by permit only in John D. Morgan Park and the Campbell Community, striking "for educational purposes" from the ordinance, and requiring at least one participant be a Campbell resident. Motion adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers: Dougherty, Dean, Watson NOES: Councilmembers: Conant, Furtado The City Clerk read the title of Ordinance 1971. M/S: Dougherty/Dean - that further reading of Ordinance 1971 be waived. Motion adopted unanimously. 15. Consideration of Referendum Petition re: Ordinance 1953 Approving General Plan Change for Winchester Drive-in site City Attorney Seligmann stated that this item was placed on the agenda pending a decision from the Court of Appeals regarding the Referendum Petition. Mr. Seligmann stated that a decision was received from the Appellate Court affirming the judgment of the trial court; therefore, no action is required. Don Hebard, 205 Calado Avenue, Campbell, appeared before the City Council and expressed his disappointment that the residents of Campbell would not have an opportunity to vote on this issue. Councilmember Dean made a motion to unilaterally place this item on the ballot. City Attorney Seligmann advised that the City Council has no authority to place this item on the ballot. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 16. Review and Approval of Ballot Arguments in Favor of Transient Occupancy Tax Measure Finance Director Conner - Staff Report dated August 4, 1998. Minutes of 8/4/98 City Council Meeting 7 12. Approval of Resolution Congratulating the Santa Clara VaUey Water District on 30 Years of Service as an Integrated Water Resource Agency (Resolution/RoB Call Vote) Resolution 9339 congratulates the Santa Clara Valley Water District on 30 years of service as an integrated water resource agency. 13. Budget Adjustment - Recabling at Campbell Community Center (Resolution/Roll Call Vote) Resolution 9340 approves a budget adjustment to allow for recabling of the Recreation and Community Services network. 14. Approval of Semi-Arcade Permit - The Garret - 1777 S. Bascom Avenue, Campbell This action approves a Semi-Arcade Permit for The Garret located at 1777 S. Bascom Avenue, Campbell. 15. Acknowledge Donation to the Campbell Police Department DARE Progr_nm from Campbell Chamber of Commerce This action acknowledges a donation to the Campbell Police Department DARE Program from the Campbell Chamber of Commerce. M/S: Conant/Furtado - to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers: Conant, Furtado, Dougherty, Dean, Watson NOES: Councilmembers: None ORAL REQUESTS.. a. Orti Almgren, 1799 Ensenada Drive, Campbell, appeared before the City Council and spoke in support of the City Council putting the Winchester Drive-in site issue on the ballot. b. Neal Locke, 200 Second Street, Campbell, appeared before the City Council and spoke in support of the City Council putting the Winchester Drive-in site issue on the ballot. c. Susanne Waher, 1381 Estrellita, Campbell, appeared before the City Council and spoke in support of the City Council putting the Winchester Drive-in site issue on the ballot. d. Ester Kwok, 300 lq. Milton Avenue, Campbell, appeared before the City Council and spoke in support of the City Council putting the Winchester Drive-in site issue on the ballot. Minutes of 2/17/98 City Council Meeting Lloyd Taylor, President, Campbell Chamber of Commerce, appeared before the City Council and spoke in support of the City Council decision approving a light industrial development on the Winchester Drive-in site. Karen Pmitt, 753 Old Orchard Road, Campbell, appeared before the City Council and spoke in support of the City Council putting the Winchester Drive-in site issue on the ballot. Andrew Kotowski, 532 N. Central Avenue #8, Campbell, appeared before the City Council and spoke in support of the City Council's decision approving a light indnstfial developmem for the Winchester Drive-in site. Mike Kotowski, 571 N. Harrison Avenue, Campbell, appeared before the City Council and spoke in support of the City Council's decision approving a light industrial developmem for the Winchester Drive-in site. Don Burr, 1485 McBain Avenue, Campbell, appeared before the City Council and spoke in support of the City Council's decision approving a light industrial development for the Winchester Drive-in site. j. Kathleen Meyer, 200 S. First Street, Campbell, appeared before the City Council and spoke in support of the City Council putting the Winchester Drive-in site on the ballot. City Attorney Seligmann discussed the effects of previous Council actions regarding the Winchester Drive-in site on any Council-initiated Ballot Measure. Following City Council discussion, M/S: Dougherty/Dean - that the City Council agendize this matter for discussion at the March 3'~ City Council Meeting. Motion failed by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers: Dougherty, Dean NOES: Councilmembers: Conant, Furtado, Watson Reeess/Reconvene: Mayor Watson declared a recess at 8:55 p.m. The City Council reconvened at 9:10 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES 16. Application of Omid Shakeri for Approval of a Pared Map (PM 97-06) to Create a Rear Flag Lot, and a Planned Development Permit (PD 97-01) to aBow the construction of two detached townhomes on property located at 105 Sunnyside Avenue in a PD (Planned Development) Zoning District (Resolutions (2)/Roll Call Vote) Minutes of 2/17/98 City Council Meeting City of Campbell -- Community Development Department 70 N. First Street, Campbell, CA 95008 MEMORANDUM To: Distribution ~ Date: December 12, 1997 From: Tim J. Haley, Associate P1 Subject: Winchester Drive In Approval The City Council at its meeting of December 8, 1997 adopted Ordinances Nos. 1953 and 1954 approvinE the General Plan Amendment and the Planned Development Permit for the development of the Winchester drive in site. This approval is effective 30 days passed its adoption. I have enclosed copies of these Ordinances and the three Resolutions Nos. 9306,9307 & 9308 of approval associated with the development of this site for your records. If you should have any questions regarding these actions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 866-2144. Distribution: Kirk Heindricks, Redevelopment Agency Harold Housley, Engineering Division Wayne Hokanson, County Fire Department Bill Helms, Environmental Program Coordinator Frank Cauthom, Building Department CITY OF CAMPBELL City Clerk's Office December 10, 1997 Mr. Ken Neumeister 900 Welch Road, Suitee 10 Palo Alto, CA 94303-0854 Dear Mr. Neumeister: At the regular meeting of December 8, 1997, the City Council adopted the following Ordinances: Ordinance No. 1953 - Amending the Land Use Element of the General Plan changing the land use designation of 19.58 acres from Commercial Destination to Industrial to a~ow a Research and Development Business Park and changing the land use designation of four acres from Commercial Destination to Public/Semi-Public for use a public open space on the former Winchester Drive-In Site. File No. GP 96-02; and Ordinance No. 1954 - Approving a Planned Development Permit, plans, elevations, development schedule and conditions of approval to allow the construction of a 280,000 square foot Research and Development Park and designation of a 4.0 public .open space area, on property located at 535 Westchester Drive and 571 McGlincey Lane in a PD (Planned Development) Zoning District. Application of Mr. Ken Neumeister, on behalf of WTA Development and Heuttig & Schromm, Inc. File No. PD 96-06 Please find certified copies of these Ordinances enclosed for your reference and records. Should you have any questions in regard to the City Council's action, please do not hesitate to contact this office (866-2117) or Tim Haley, Associate Planner. Sincerely, City Clerk Enc. cc. ~~!~ommunlty Development Department Kirk Heinrichs, Redevelopment Manager 70 North First Street · Campbell, California 95008.1423 · TEL 408.866.2117 - F^X 408.374.6889 · TDD 408.866.279u MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: CITY OF CAMPBELL Tim Haley, Associate Planner Community Development Department Jan~ems ley Dep~y City Clerk SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment and PD Permit - 535 Westchester Drive and 571 McGlincey Lane DATE: December 10, 1997 Please find attached certified copies of Ordinance No. 1953 and Ordinance No. 1954 which were given second reading at the City Council meeting of December 8, 1997: Ordinance No. 1953 - Amending the Land use Element of the General Plan changing the land use designation of 19.58 acres from Commercial Destination to Industrial to allow a Research and Development Business Park and changing the land use designation of four acres from Commercial Destination to Public/Semi-Public for use ~ public open space on the former Winchester Drive-In Site. File No. GP 96-02; ordinance No. 1954 - Approving a Planned Development Permit, plans, elevations, development schedule and conditions of approval to allow the construction of a 280,000 square foot Research and Development Park and designation of a 4.0 public open space area, on property located at 535 Westchester Drive and 571 McGlincey Lane in a PD (Planned Development) Zoning District. Application of Mr. Ken Neumeister, on behalf of WTA Development and Heuttig & Schromm, Inc. File No. PD 96-06 ORDINANCE NO. BEING AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF 19.58 ACRES FROM COMMERCIAL DESTINATION TO INDUSTRIAL TO ALLOW A RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT BUSINESS PARK AND CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF FOUR ACRES FROM COMMERCIAL DESTINATION TO PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC FOR USE AS PUBLIC OPEN SPACE ON THE FORMER WINCHESTER DRIVE-IN SITE. FILE NO. GP 96-02. The City Council of the City of Campbell does ordain as follows: SECTION ONE: That the Land Use Element of the General Plan of the City of Campbell, together with the amendments thereto, is hereby changed and amended as per Exhibit A, attached hereto. SECTION TWO: This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following its passage and adoption and shall be published once within fifteen (15) days upon passage and adoption in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Campbell, County of Santa Clara. PASSED AND ADOPTED this ~3t:h day of December roll call vote: ,1997, by the following AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Dougher ty, ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ATTEST: e~Bybe~ Conant, Furtado, Watson Dean APPROVED BYi ~__.~~ -- ~ J~/~ tte Watson, Mayor OR FI~ tm ' o~ ~ , ' General Plan Amendment for approximately 20 nares from Commercial to Industrial. · / f Exhibit A 535 Westchester Drive · 571 MeGltnee~y Lane PROJECT SITE GP 96-02/PD 96-06/TS 97-01 S 97-05 General Plan Amendment for 4 acres from Commercial to Public / Semi- Public. NO SCALE PROJECT SITE ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT C.a-I,I~.NDA,R 8. Amendment to Agreement for City Manager Services (Resolution/Roll Call Vote) This item was removed from the Consent Calendar and not considered at this meeting. o Ordinance 1953 approving General Plan Amendment (GP 96-02) changing the Land Use Element of the General Plan from Destination Commercial to Industrial for approximately 19.58 acres and to Public/Semi Public for 4 acres - 535 Westchester Drive and 571 McGlincey Lane (Second Reading/Roll Call Vote) Ordinance 1954 approving Planned Development Permit (I'D 96-06) to allow the construction of a 280,000 square foot Research and Development business park on 19.58 acres and the designation of 4 acres as Public Open Space - 535 Westchester Drive and 571 McGlincey Lane (Second Reading/Roll Call Vote) Councilmember Dougherty requested that the City Council consider delaying second reading of Ordinance Nos. 1953 and 1954 until the January 6, 1998 City Council Meeting in consideration of the referendum proponents so they would not have to circulate petitions during the holiday season. M/S: DoughertyfDean - that second reading of Ordinance 1953 and 1954 be continued to January 6, 1998. Motion failed by a 2-3-0 vote, Councilmembers Conant, Furtado and Watson voting No. M/S: Furtado/Conant - to approve second reading of Ordinance 1953 approving a change to the Land Use Element of the General Plan from Destination Commercial to Industrial for approximately 19.58 acres and to Public/Semi Public for 4 acres - 535 Westchester Drive and 571 McGlincey Lane and second reading of Ordinance 1954 approving Planned Development Permit (PD 96-06) to allow the construction of a 280,000 square foot Research and Development business park on 19.58 acres and the designation of 4 acres as Public Open Space - 535 Westchester Drive and 571 McGlincey Lane. Motion adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers: Conant, Furtado, Watson NOES: Councilmembers: Dougherty, Dean ORAL REOUESTS ao Sally Howe appeared before the City Council on behalf of the Downtown Business Association to express appreciation to the City Council for the Carol of Lights event which was a successful event in downtown. Minutes of 12/8/97 City Council Meeting 4 ORDINANCE NO. ~954 BEING AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL APPROVING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, PLANS, ELEVATIONS, DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 280,000 SQUARE FOOT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PARK AND DESIGNATION OF A 4.0 PUBLIC OPEN SPACE AREA, ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 535 WESTCHESTER DRIVE AND 571 McGLINCEY LANE. IN A PD (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) ZONING DISTRICT. APPLICATION OF MR. KEN NEUMEISTER, ON BEHALF OF WTA DEVELOPMENT AND HEUTTIG & SCHROMM, INC. FILE NO. PD 96-06. After notification and public hearing, as specified by law, and after presentation by the Community Development Staff, the environmental consultant, Redevelopment Staff, proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed. After due consideration of all evidence presented, the City Council finds as follows with respect to application PD 96-06: The proposed 280,000 square foot research and development park and on-site and off-site improvements are consistent with the general project description and evaluation provided in the 1996 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (1996 SEIR) and the Addendum prepared October 1997, which considered a 4 acre public open space component adjacent to the project. On January 7, 1997, the City Council found and certified that the 1996 SEIR has been completed in compliance with the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and the Local CEQA Implementing Guidelines; that the 1996 SEIR adequately addresses the environmental issues of the project; and that the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the information in the 1996 SEIR, prior to making any recommendations to the City Council on the project and for the discretionary approvals necessary to the development of the project. An Addendum to the 1996 SEIR has been prepared evaluating a reduction in building square footage and addition of a 4 acre public open space component. o The proposed project, subject to the proposed conditions of approval, incorporates a logical site layout and circulation pattern, sufficient landscaping and an attractive architectural design, and identifying a 4.0 acre public open space component for future development by the city. ° The proposed lot arrangement, as conditioned, allows for the creation of four industrial lots along a private street and a remainder lot to be use as a 4 acre public open space component along a new public street. The proposed street layout and driveway locations address the cimulation needs and anticipated traffic. o The improvements of local infi:astmcture including storm drainage facilities, water supply and roadway improvements will aid and encourage the redevelopment of neighboring industrial properties. City Council Ordinance No. __ PD 96-06 - 535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 2 o ° o 10. 11. Based 1. o The site layout could accommodate a pedestrian/bicycle overpass over Highway 17 from the project site to the Los Gatos Creek Trail. The development and subdivision of the property will not substantially change the proposed project from that examined in the 1996 SEIR and the Addendum in any way that would involve new significant environmental effects or substantially increase the severity of any previously identified significant effects. The development and subdivision of the property will not substantially change the circumstances under which the project is undertaken in a way which would involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. The development and subdivision of the property does not present any new information not previously known at the time when the SEIR was certified that would indicate that: a. The project will have any significant effects not previously discussed in the SEIR, or b. That any effects will be substantially more severe; or c. That mitigation measures found not to be feasible would now be feasible; or d. That mitigation 'measures or alternatives exist that are considerably different from those analyzed in the SEIR. The Addendum adequately discussed and evaluates the development and subdivision changes necessary to accommodate a 4 acre public open space component. Absent the easement, the development of the industrial park would impede access to and from the existing and proposed recreation areas in the City of Campbell. upon the foregoing findings of fact, the City Council further finds and concludes that: The proposed development and uses as presented will result in a highly desirable environment and use of the land. The development and uses are compatible with the recommended Mixed-Industrial and Public/Semi-Public Land Use and will aid in the harmonious development of the immediate area. The development, as proposed, will enhance the health, safety or welfare of the neighborhood or the City as a whole. City Council Ordinance No. __ PD 96-06 - 535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 3 Based upon the above findings, the City Council approves the permit by adopting the attached Exhibit A, entitled plans and elevations; Exhibit B, entitled Development Schedule; Exhibit C, entitled Conditions of Approval as per the application of Mr. Ken Neumeister, on behalf of WTA Development and Heuttig & Schromm, Inc. Copies of Said Exhibits are on file in the Planning Department. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 8th vote: __day of December , 1997, by the following roll call AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Conant, Furtado, Watson NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Dougherty, Dean ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: None APPROVED: Watson, Mayor ATTEST · Ann, B~b, ~ e y ee, CitS, Clerk ,,E FORE,~O,U~a ,.s, Ruu~,T ,s ^ AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ON FILE IN THtS OFFICE, Exhibit A Plans & Elevations Il, ,1I i ~ / / / I I I II Ii' I i I I \ · ..... ~- ..... i* ..... -' ..... '" .... I IIII ltl I ! i,i,:[:l,l{ J ll:llli i: l l i I ~ !I1 J . ii / '1 [ i Ifil J t1't fltllJi I :.h: ~II till. / / Ii :i i ! il :J i " i ! i ~- r Exhibit B DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE PD 96-06 - 535 Westchester Boulevard/571 McGlincey Lane The development schedule shall be consistent with the adopted Development and Disposition Agreement which states that construction of the first building shall commence within two years of the City Council approval. Exhibit C -- Conditions of Approval PD 96-06 - 535 Westchester/571 McGlincey Lane Page 1 The applicants are hereby notified, as part of this application, that they are required to meet the following conditions in accordance with the Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the State of California. The lead department with which the applicant will work is identified. Additionally, the applicants are hereby notified that they are required to comply with all applicable Codes and Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the State of California that pertain to this development and are not contained herein. SITE AND BUILDING DESIGN: 1. Approved Project: This approval is granted to construct a 280,000 square foot research and development complex of approximately 19.5 acres and the designation of approximately 4.0 acres of public open space on the south side of the site on properties identified as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 412-29-007, 412-30-035, 412-30-042 and 412-30- 043. Development shall be substantially as shown on the project and exhibit materials listed below, except as may be modified by conditions contained herein: (Planning) Ao The proposed research and development use shall substantially comply with the use description provided in the applicant's letter dated February 10, 1997, except as modified to accommodate the 4 acre open space component. The proposed industrial uses shall be conducted entirely with the interior of the buildings and not in the parking area, driveways or landscape areas surrounding the buildings, except for the on site parking and loading. Exterior storage yards and exterior tank or processing areas are not permitted with this approval. Building use to be restricted to administrative and private offices, conference and training areas, and complementary engineering/research development, testing and assembly areas, including warehousing and shipping/receiving areas. B. Project plans prepared by TSH Architects (20 pages) dated 10/13/97. C. Project description by Huettig & Schromm dated 2/10/97. Revised Plans and Elevations: Revised elevations and/or site plan indicating the following changes: A. Site Plan: Landscaping along Highway 17 Frontage: Obtain an encroachment permit from CALTRANS to install landscaping to infill existing openings along the Highway 17 frontage of the project. The applicant shall provide a maximum of 30 (15 gallon redwood trees) to achieve tree plantings 40-foot on center. Landscape Plan approval is required, prior to building occupancy and planting installation to be · completed within one year of building occupancy. In the event that the applicant is unable to obtain an encroachment permit from CALTRANS, within the time specified then the applicant shall deposit funds with the City to cover the planting and installation of such trees, so that the City may pursue such permits. Exhibit C -- Conditions of Approval PD 96-06- 535 Westchester/571 McGlincey Lane Page 2 o Fencing: The proposed fencing along Highway 17 frontage and southern property west of the proposed public street to be a black vinyl clad 6 foot to 8 foot high, cyclone fence. A final fencing plan to be approved by the Site and Architectural Review Committee in conjunction with the landscaping and irrigation plan prior to the issuance of building permits. B. Elevations: Applicant to refine the building elevations to increase the building plane offset of up to two (2) feet at the lower window elements and/or add an additional trellis element from the concrete wall features on Buildings A, B, and C, and to install additional pillar treatments or other structures or landscape elements to accentuate the entrance to Buildings A, B and D. The refined elevations to be approved by the Site and Architectural Review Committee (SARC) prior to the issuance of building permits. 2. Applicant shall extend the concrete parapet t/eatment at building comers where the radius "bullnose" treatment is shown. 3. All roof-mounted equipment to be screened by the proposed parapet walls or feature walls at the building entrances. Co Transportation Demand Management: Applicant to participate in a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program for future tenants and to incorporate participation in such program through the covenants, conditions and restrictions. This program to incorporate, but is not limited to the following: 1. Provision of Bicycle Parking Facilities. 2. Provision of on-site food service facilities. 3. Participation in shuttle/car pool service to public transit facilities such as light rail stations or park and ride lots when these facilities are constructed. 4. Accommodation of bus stop locations, if public bus service is provided to the site. Hours of Operation: Hours of operation of the industrial park shall be limited to 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. with the exception of the activities described below: (Planning) A. Employee access to the site shall not be limited by hours of operation. B. Delivery hours shall be restricted per the project description. Trucking access is not permitted from 11 p.m. to 6:30 a.m. C. Operation hours of exterior activities (e.g. loading, unloading, outdoor recreation, etc.) to be limited to the hours of 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. for buildings C and D, located along the Exhibit C -- Conditions of Approval PD 96-06 - 535 Westchester/571 McGlincey Lane Page 3 east property line adjacent to the mobile home park. D. Parking lot sweeping, landscape maintenance, or other exterior activities that make noise shall be limited to the hours of 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. weekdays. LANDSCAPING Landscaping Plan: Landscaping plan indicating type and size of plant material and location and design of the irrigation system to be submitted to the Planning Department and approved by the Site and Architectural Review Committee prior to issuance of building permits. The minimum size of trees and shrubs planted on-site, except as modified by conditions contained herein, shall be as follows: Ao The applicant shall install forty-four (44) 36-inch trees and the remainder of all trees shall include fifty percent 24-inch box and fifty percent 15-gallon sizes. Tree types for the parking area shall achieve a 30 foot height in their canopy. B. Shrubs shall be a minimum of 5 gallons with the exception of accent shrubs that may be a minimum of 1 gallon. C. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit a tree protection plan shall be submitted for all retained trees on the site. The landscape plan shall comply with the City's Water Efficient Landscape Standards (WELS). A WELS checklist shall be submitted with the final landscape plan. (Planning) Screening of Mobile Home Park and Project Entrance: The applicant shall install a minimum six foot pre-cast concrete or concrete block wall along the east property line adjacent to the mobile home park and north property line adjacent to the apartments. Walls at the project entrance shall be not exceed 42 inches in height except for screening walls behind landscaped entry. Walls along the percolation ponds and in front of businesses shall be open or low and decorative less than 3.5 feet in height. The applicant shall submit a report from an acoustical engineer verifying that the height and the materials of the proposed fence provides adequate sound attenuation as recommended by the SEIR. o Tree Retention and Removal: Applicant to submit a tree protection plan prior to any grading and clearing of the project site. Any trees to be removed shall be replaced consistent with the WELS standards for tree replacement. STREET/SITE IMPROVEMENTS o Parking and Driveways: All driveways and parking areas to be improved in compliance with Chapter 21.50 of the Campbell Municipal Code o Lighting Plan: Lighting from the site shall not spill over to adjoining properties. A lighting plan, indicating that lighting will not spill over to the adjoining properties, shall be Exhibit C -- Conditions of Approval PD 96-06 - 535 Westchester/571 McGlincey Lane Page 4 submitted to the Planning Department and approved by the Community Development Director (CDD)prior to the issuance of building permits. (Planning) Soils and Geologic Report: A soils and geologic report shall be submitted to the Planning Department and Public Works Department for review and approval pr/or to the issuance of building permits. The report shall include the investigation of the site's potential for surface rupture, ground acceleration and liquefaction. The study shall recommend measures to reduce the potential for seismic hazards. (Public Works) PROPERTY MANAGEMENT/UTILITIES 10. Property Maintenance: Before, during and after construction, the site shall be kept free of weeds, trash and litter.(Planning) 11. Garbage Collection: Ordinance No. 782 of the Campbell Municipal Code stipulates that any contract for the collection and disposal of refuse, garbage, wet garbage and rubbish produced within the limits of the City of Campbell shall be made with Green Valley Disposal Company. This requirement applies to all single-family dwellings, multiple- family dwellings and all commercial, business, industrial, manufacturing and construction establishments. (Fire) 12. Trash Containers: Trash storage method(s) of a size and quality necessary to serve the development shall be located in area(s) approved by the Fire Department. Any enclosure(s) located outside the building and loading area shall consist of a concrete floor surrounded by a solid wall or fence and have self-closing doors of a size specified by the Fire Department. All enclosures to be constructed at grade level and have a level area adjacent to the trash enclosure area to service these containers. (Fire/Planning) PUBLIC SAFETY/WELFARE 13. Handicapped Requirements: Applicant shall comply with all appropriate State and City requirements for the handicapped. (Building) 14. Underground Utilities: Underground utilities to be provided as required by Section 20.36.150 of the Campbell Municipal Code. (Public Works) 15. Utility Boxes and Back-Flow Preventers: Applicant to submit a plan to the Planning Department, prior to installation of PG&E transformer boxes and San Jose Water Company back-flow prevention devises, indicating the location of the boxes and screening (if boxes are above ground) for approval of the CDD. (Planning) 16. Equipment Screening: All mechanical equipment on roofs and all utility meters to be screened and approved by the CDD. (Planning) 17. Roof Equipment: The applicant shall supply noise specifications for all mechanical equipment proposed. The applicant shall supply an updated noise study to verify that noise Exhibit C -- Conditions of Approval PD 96-06 - 535 Westchester/571 McGlincey Lane Page 5 generated by the roof mounted equipment is not audible at the property line shared with existing residential uses and that the equipment complies with the following: A. The Campbell Noise Element standards. B. Should the noise level exceed Campbell standards, the noise report shall specify mitigation measures.(Planning) 18. Utiliw Connections: Plans submitted to the Building Division for plan check shall indicate clearly the location of all connections for underground utilities including water, storm and sewer, electric, telephone and television cables, etc. (Building) 19. Construction Hours and Dust Mitigation: A. Hours of construction shall be limited to 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, unless an exception is granted by the Building Official. B. The construction site shall be sprinkled with water as necessary, but not less than twice per day to control dust. C. Haul trucks and material stockpiles shall be covered. D. The construction area and surrounding streets shall be swept as necessary but not less than once daily. (Planning) 20. Sewer: Comply with requirements of the West Valley Sanitation District for sewer hook up and utilities. (Planning) 21. Non-Point Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) Permit: Applicant is advised that the Regional Water Quality Control Board will require that all construction on sites larger than five acres will require the project to be covered by an NPDES permit. Permit conditions may require construction and post-construction storm water management plans. The applicant is responsible for obtaining this permit and paying associated fees and providing plans as required. 22. Signing Program: Applicant to submit a signage program plan for approval of the Community Development Director for the project site, prior to the installation of any signage. Signing program to provide details and criteria for all exterior project signage and to include the following: a. Off-site directional signage for the project at the project entry at McGlincey Lane. b. Building/tenant identification signage. All signage to comply with Chapter 21.53 of the Campbell Municipal Code. Exhibit C -- Conditions of Approval PD 96-06 - 535 Westchester/571 McGlincey Lane Pate 6 PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS 23. 24. 25. 26. Map Requirements: Prior to issuance of any building permits for the site, the applicant shall prepare and submit a Final Tract Map for review by City Engineer and recordation upon City approval. The current fee for processing the Final Tract Map is $1,380 plus $25/lot. Applicant shall provide all documents as required for review and approval of the Final Map. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the applicant must provide evidence from each utility and special district that they approve of the filing of the Final Map as submitted, that the easements shown on the map are adequate for each utility to serve the proposed development and that the procedure for abandonment of any existing easements is acceptable. Dedication to Ci _ty: Prior to approval of the final map, the applicant shall dedicate, acquire land for dedication and/or obtain dedications as necessary to accommodate construction of the required public street improvements for: the 45-foot public street access to McGlincey Lane; the 50-foot public street across the south end of the site; the right of way needed to construct the cul-de-sac and intersection at McGlincey Lane as shown on the approved tentative map; and the right of way/easements necessary (15 foot minimum) to construct the public storm drain system through the development and through the private Paseo de Palomas street. Applicant shall prepare all documents necessary to obtain the dedications and/or remove any existing easements, provide all information required for reviewing these documents and shall pay all costs associated with obtaining the required dedications and/or easements and recordation of these dedications. Should it be necessary for the City to implement eminent domain proceedings in order to obtain right-of-way, the applicant shall pay all costs associated with the condemnation proceedings, including attorney's fees. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the applicant must determine the adequacy of the existing storm drainage easement along Paseo de Palomas. If the existing easement is not adequate for construction of the proposed parallel/upsized storm drain from the site to the existing system in Union Avenue, the applicant shall provide all documents necessary for the City to obtain this easement. These documents shall include all engineering plans, plats and descriptions of the easement required for construction of this storm drain facility. Storm Drain Area Fee: Prior to issuance of any building permits for the site, the applicant shall pay the required storm drain area fee of $2,500/acre. Grading and Drainage Plan: Prior to approval of the final map or issuance of any building permits for the site, the applicant shall conduct hydrology studies as necessary, prepare grading and drainage plans and pay fees required to obtain necessary grading permits for the site. Grading plans shall include the disposition of and abandonment of existing utility lines as necessary. Exhibit C -- Conditions of Approval PD 96-06 - 535 Westchester/571 McGlincey Lane Page 7 27. Hydrology studies, grading and storm drainage plans shall include the public access road fi.om McGlincey to the site. Storm drainage plans shall include existing invert and top of pipe elevations of the SCVWD culvert crossing the proposed roadway. Hydrology studies and storm drainage design shall include the drainage area bounded by Highway 17 to the west, Curmer Avenue to the south, the City limits to the east and the existing storm drain in McGlincey Lane easterly of the development to the north. The storm drainage plans for this drainage area shall include removal, replacement and/or installation of new storm lines as needed in McGlincey and Cristich Lanes to connect to a new and/or upsized storm drainage line required through the development, through the Paseo de Palomas private road and ultimately connecting to the existing storm drainage facilities in Union Avenue. Completion of this design is required to determine the appropriate size, location and invert elevations of the storm drainage facilities to be constructed on site that will allow for the future construction of the off-site storm drainage improvements in McGlincey Lane and Cristich Lane. The applicant shall be required to construct only the portions of this storm drainage facility that are on-site and the connection to the existing system in Union Avenue through the storm drain easement in Paseo de Palomas. The applicant shall provide a "stub-out" to Cristich Lane to allow for the future storm drain construction off-site. Standard Street Improvements: Prior to approval of the final map or issuance of any building permits for the site, the applicant shall prepare plans, pay fees, post securities and provide insurance as required to obtain an encroachment permit to construct public street improvements as required by the City Engineer. Public street improvement plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer licensed in the State of California and shall include: · Construction of the 45-foot public street access to McGlincey Lane to include: 30-foot of asphalt concrete roadway; a standard marginal 5-foot sidewalk and a 5-foot landscaping strip along the west side of the street; a 5-foot landscaping strip along the east side of the street; no parking signs, signing and striping, standard curb and gutter, storm drainage facilities and street lighting facilities along both sides of the street; construction of driveways as required for existing parcels; and all conforms necessary to accommodate the existing improvements on the parcels south of the proposed development. · Construction of a 50-foot right of way public street along the southern fi'ontage of the property to include: 35-feet of asphalt concrete roadway; standard driveway approaches for the entrances to the development; a standard marginal 5-foot sidewalk; and a 10-foot Public Utilities Easement along the north side of the street; a 5-foot landscape strip and a 5-foot separated walk along the southern side of the street; no parking signs for the northern side of the street, signing and striping, standard curb and gutter, storm drainage facilities and street lighting along both sides of the street. All improvements shall be designed and constructed to allow future continuation of the Exhibit C -- Conditions of Approval PD 96-06 - 535 Westchester/571 McGlincey Lane Page 8 28. 29. improvements on Cristich Lane and an appropriate cul-de-sac terminus shall be designed and constructed at the western end of the new public street. · Construction of the intersection as shown on the approved tentative map and as directed by the City Engineer. Intersection improvements may include sidewalks, handicap ramps, signing, striping and increased street widths as shown on the approved tentative map. · All streets and their intersections with access points to the site shall be designed to accommodate all truck turning movements. Improvements at the west end of the new public street shall be constructed to allow for a future connection to Cristich Lane. Street trees shall be of a type that will not grow to encroach or interfere with public traffic. · Construction of a complete traffic signal system and equipment, signing, striping, utility relocation and related improvements to provide for signalization of the intersection of Union Avenue and McGlincey Lane. The traffic signal system and equipment shall include but not be limited to: vehicle detection equipment, traffic signal standards, street lighting and electrical services; pavement repair; signing and striping and other components as required by the City Traffic Engineer. Reconfiguration of the intersection of McGlincey Lane and Curtner Avenue to provide for a flee right mm lane from southbound McGlincey to westbound Curmer, a free left turn from eastbound Curmer to northbound McGlincey and stop controls for westbound Curmer east of the intersection as directed by the City Engineer. Existing pavement in this intersection may need to be resurfaced to allow for the additional lanes and new striping pattern. · Provide signing, striping and pavement reconstruction at the intersection of McGlincey Land and the new public access road as necessary to provide lane configurations as directed by the City Engineer. · Construction of the storm drain facility extending from Cristich Lane through the development via storm drain easements to connect to the existing system in Union Avenue. Construction of storm drain facilities for all public streets including the public access road from McGlincey. Completion of Public Street Improvements: Prior to issuance of occupancy for the site, all public street improvements as required by the encroachment permit must be completed and accepted by the City Engineer and the applicant must provide the one-year maintenance security. Landscaping Maintenance Agreements: Prior to recordation of the final map, the applicant shall prepare and execute a landscape maintenance agreement requiring the develop.ment to post securities and maintain all landscaping, irrigation and irrigation facilities, walls and fences within all public areas, including the public access street to McGlincey Lane and the new public access road adjacent to the property. This agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to being executed by both parties and recorded by the City. Exhibit C -- Conditi, , of Approval PD 96-06 - 535 Westchester/571 McGlincey Lane Page 9 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. Underground Utilities: All new on-site utilities shall be installed underground per Section 20.36.150 of the Campbell Municipal Code for any new or remodeled buildings or additions. Applicant shall comply with all plan submittals, permitting and fee requirements of the serving utility company. Applicant shall submit a Utility Coordination Plan and Schedule for approval by the City Engineer for installation of all utilities. The plan shall minimize the damage to all public facilities. Soils Report: Engineer Provide a soils report prepared by a registered Geotechnical or Civil Title Report: Provide a current Preliminary Title Report. Street Name: The final map shall contain the City-approved street name for the new public street. Storm Water Management: Comply with the Regional Water Quality Control Board's industrial storm water general permit and California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook, prepared by Storm Water Quality Task Force, Santa Clara Valley Water District. Coordination with Capital Improvement/Other Projects: Applicant shall coordinate with other city improvement projects within the vicinity. Location and installation of off-site improvements that may be required by other districts and utility companies shall be approved by the City. Monumentation: Prior to recording the Final Map, the applicant shall provide security guaranteeing the cost of setting all monuments as shown on the Final Map. Street Improvement Agreement: Prior to the approval of the final map, the applicant shall execute a street improvement agreement and post securities to guarantee the installation of the required street improvements. Notification to Adjacent Properties, Prior to any construction activity on the development, applicant shall notify all adjacent properties, including the management of the adjacent mobile home park. Notification shall include a contact number for the developer which can be used by the property owners during construction should questions or problems arise. FIRE REQUIREMENTS 39. Required Fire Flow: Required fn'e flow for this project is 3500 GPM at 20 psi residual pressure for 3 hours. The required fire flow is not available from area water mains and fire hydrant(s) which are spaced at the required spacing. This figure based upon the largest of four proposed buildings (100,000 square feet) and with the construction type of Type III- Exhibit C -- Conditk, of Approval PD 96-06 - 535 Westchester/571 McGlincey Lane Page 10 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. Non Rated and the buildings being office type occupancies. Anything other than office will require flow re-computation. Automatic Fire Sprinkler System Required: Buildings requiring a fire flow in excess of 2,000 GPM and/or in excess of two stories in height (35 Feet) shall be equipped throughout with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. The fire sprinkler systems shall be hydraulically designed per National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard #13, 1994 Edition. Final Required Fire Flow: Required fire flow may be reduced up to 75% in buildings equipped with automatic fire sprinkler systems, but can be no less than 1500 GPM. Therefore, the final required fire flow is 1500 GPM at 20 psi. residual pressure. This flow shall be taken from any two fire hydrants, on or near the site so long as they are spaced at a maximum spacing of 250 feet. Public Fire Hydrant(s) Required: Provide 4 public fire hydrant(s) at location(s) to be determined jointly by the Fire Department and the San Jose Water Company. Maximum hydrant spacing shall be 250 feet and the minimum single flow hydrant shall be 1500 GPM at 20 psi. residual pressure. Fire Apparatus (Ladder Truck) Access Roads Required: Provide access roadways with a paved all weather surface and a minimum unobstructed width of 30 feet, vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, minimum circulating turning radius of 50 feet outside and 35 feet inside, a maximum slope of 10% and vehicle loading of 75,000 pounds. Fire Ladder Truck Set Up Area(s) Option: Provide Fire Department Ladder Truck Set Up Areas with a minimum unobstructed width of 20 feet and a minimum length of 60 feet. Area shall support 75,000 pounds of gross vehicle weight. Area shall be paved or other engineered surfaces may be used with Fire Department approval. Note: A minimum of two locations per building is needed if this option is exercised. Parking Along Roadways: The required width of fire access roadways shall not be obstructed in any manner. Parking shall not be allowed along roadways less than 28 feet in width. Parking will be allowed along one side of the street for roadways 28-35 feet in width. For roadways equal to or greater than 36 feet, parking will be allowed on both sides of the roadway. Roadway widths shall be measured face to face of curb. Parking spaces are based on an 8 foot wide space. Fire Lane Marking Required: Provide marking for all roadways within the project. Markings shall be per fire department specifications. Installations shall also conform to Local Government Standards and Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications A- 6. Note: This will apply to portions of Cristieh Lane as well as "on-site." Timing of Required Roadway Installations: Required Roadway installations shall be in place, inspected and accepted by the Fire Department prior to the start of roof construction. Bulk combustible construction materials may not be delivered to the construction site until Exhibit C -- Conditions of Approval PD 96-06 - 535 Westchester/571 McGlincey Lane Page t 1 installations are completed as stated above. Note: Tilt-up construction may occur prior to roadway installation. 48. Timing of Required Hydrant Installations: Required Hydrant(s) installations shall be in place, inspected and accepted by the Fire Department prior to the start of roofing construction. Bulk combustible construction materials may not be delivered to the construction site until installations are completed as stated above. Note: Tilt-up construction may occur prior to water system installation. 49. Fire Department Key Box Required: Provide an approved fire department key box and appropriate building keys for each building. Installations shall conform with Fire District Standard Detail and Specification K-1. 50. Emergency Gate/Access Gate Requirements: When open, gates shall not obstruct any portion of the required access roadway or driveway width. If provided, all locks shall be fire department approved. Installations shall conform with Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications G-1. 51. Location of Required Fire Protection System(s) Equipment: Location of Fire Hydrants, Fire Sprinkler System(s) Post Indicator Valves (PIV), Fire Department Connections (FDC) and Fire Alarm Equipment shall be coordinated with the Fire Department and the Project Planners. 52. Fire Sprinkler System Alarm Device Monitoring Required: Provide approved type monitoring for all fire sprinkler system alarm devices for each building. 53. Required Plans and Documentation: Final Written Plan for Project Phasing shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review. 54. Location of Fire Hydrants: Location of some fire hydrants will be required. Contact the Fire Department for details. 55. Through Connection to Cristich and Union: A emergency access connection shall be provided to the existing Cristich Lane fi.om the new "Public Street." Secondary access shall be provided from the 295 Union Avenue access. Once permanent public improvement is made to Cristich Lane, the Union Avenue access point shall remain as the third access point. Emergency access driveways shall be gated and designated as "Fire Access Only." 56. Secondary Access Required: Provide a secondary access point. Installations and Design of Secondary Access shall conform to Fire Department Standard Details and Specification A-4. · Should secondary access not be immediately attainable to Standard A-4 specifications, apply in writing for variance through this department. 57. Required Plans and Permits: Plans for fire apparatus access roads and fire hydrant systems shall be submitted to the Fire District for review and approval prior to Exhibit C -- Conditions of Approval PD 96-06 - 535 Westchester/571 McGlincey Lane Page 12 construction. Permits are required for the installation of all Private Water Supply, Tank and Hydrant Systems and must be issued to contractors prior to the start of installation of such systems. 58. Emergency Vehicle Egress Access Easements: Emergency Vehicle Egress Access easements (EVEA) shall be granted and recorded to the fire department for emergency egress. 59. Private Fire Hydrant(s) Required.: Provide 14 private on-site fire hydrant(s) installed per NFPA Std. //24, at location(s) to be determined by the Fire Department. Maximum hydrant spacing shall be 250 feet and the minimum single flow hydrant shall be 1500 GPM at 20 psi residual pressure. Prior to design, the project civil engineer shall meet with the fire department water supply officer to jointly spot the hydrant locations. 60. Botts Dots: All fire hydrants shall be identified in the proximate roadway with blue Botts Dots. MISCELLANEOUS REQUIREMENTS 61. Graffiti: Any graffiti occurring on the exterior of buildings shall be removed within one week of its appearance or request for removal by the City and the applicant/property owner will make a best effort to seal off, landscape screen or other methods to discourage future access or visibility for graffiti taggers. 13. City Attorney Seligmann advised that the public hearing should be reopened so that the entire hearing could be continued. Mayor Conant reopened the public hearing. Councilmember Dean requested that City staff conduct a sample of the properties on the list and report back as to the number of properties that have a potential problem. In response, Community Development Director Piasecki stated that staff will check every property on the list prior to the December 8~ Council Meeting. Vote on the motion: Motion adopted unanimously. Application of Ken Neumeister, on behalf of WTA Development and Huettig & Schromm, Inc., for approval of the following applications for property located at 535 Westchester Drive in a PD (Planned Development) Zoning District and 571 McGlincey Lane in an M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District: a. Certification of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR 1996) and the Addendmn and making a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution/Roll Call Vote) b. General Plan Amendment (GP 96-02) to consider a change in the Land Use Element of the General Plan from Destination Commercial to Industrial for approximately 19.58 acres and to Public/Semi Public for 4 acres (Introduction of Ordinance/Roll Call Vote) c. Planned Development Permit (PD 96-06) to allow the construction of a 280,000 square foot Research and Development business park on 19.58 acres and the designation of 4 acres as Public Open Space (Resolution/Roll Call Vote) d. A Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (TS 97-01) to allow the creation of four lots and a remainder lot designated for Public Open Space (Resolution/Roll Call Vote) e. A Site and Architectural Approval (S 97-05) to allow the construction of two off-premise signs and landscaping at the McGlincey Lane entrance to the site (Resolution/Roll Call Vote) (Note: A transcript of Item 13 and 14 was prepared by a certified court reporter in addition to the Minutes as prepared by the City Clerk.) This is the time and place for a public hearing to consider the application of Ken Neumeister, on behalf of WTA Development and Huettig & Schromm, Inc., for approval of the following applications for property located at 535 Westchester Drive in a PD (Planned Development) Zoning District and 571 McGlincey Lane in an M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District: Certification of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and Addendum; General Plan Amendment to consider a change in the land use element of the General Plan from Destination Minutes of 11/18/97 City Council Meeting 6 Commercial to Industrial for approximately i9.58 acres and to Public/Semi Public for 4 acres; a Planned Development Permit to allow the construction of a 280,000 square foot research and development business park on 19.58 acres and the designation of four acres as public open space; a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map to allow the creation of four lots and a remainder lot designated for public open space; and a Site and Architectural Approval to allow the construction of two off-premise signs and landscaping at the McGlincey Lane entrance to the site. Associate Planner Haley - Staff Report dated November 18, 1997. Councilmember Dougherty asked a number of questions relating to the Open Space Authority, the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, and the Addendum, and stated that he believes there are several points in the information that has been provided to the Council that are inaccurate and inconsistent. Councilmember Dougherty also discussed the proposed improvements to the Castro School site and what impact it may have on the programs and services the City offers. City Staff responded to the points raised by Councilmember Dougherty. Councilmember Dean expressed his concerns that the information from the Open Space Study Session was not discussed with the Planning Commission, which he believes is pertinent information to the discussion of open space. Councilmember Dean also expressed concerns regarding the timing of the traffic study which he believes does not accurately state the traffic impact. Councilmember Dean expressed concern that the applicant is not willing to agree to the four added conditions of approval as recommended by the Planning Commission which he believes are reasonable. Traffic Engineer Ealdand responded to Councilmember Dean's comments regarding the traffic study. Mayor Conant declared the public hearing open and asked if anyone in the audience wished to be heard. Howard White, Applicant and Managing Parmer for WTA Development, appeared before the City Council, and spoke in support of the project and explained the reasons he is unable to support the four conditions of approval as recommended by the Planning Commission. Neal Locke, 200 2~ Street, Campbell, appeared before the City Council and spoke in support of developing the drive-in site as open space. Don Hebard, 205 Calado Avenue, Campbell, appeared before the City Council and spoke against the General Plan change and requested that the City Council put it to the vote of the people. Mr. Hebard also asked some questions regarding the DDA. Mayor Conant stated that those questions relating to the DDA would be addressed by staff Minutes of 11/18/97 City Council Meeting 7 when that item is considered by the City Council and Redevelopment Agency Board. Mr. Hebard also requested a breakdown of the off-site improvements. City Manager Strojny stated that the information requested by Mr. Hebard regarding off-site improvements is not available at this meeting, but staff will follow up with Mr. Hebard. Susanne Waher, 1381 Estrellita Way, Campbell, appeared before the City Council and spoke in support of open space on the drive-in site. Brad Jones, 692 Bucknall Road, Campbell, appeared before the City Council and spoke against the general plan amendment and stated that the City Council should allow the citizens to decide the disposition of the site. David Sausjord, 946 Norin Court, Campbell, appeared before the City Council and spoke in support of open space on the drive-in site. Mr. Sausjord presented a letter for the record from Tom Quirk, President of the Central Santa Clara Valley Youth Soccer League citing the need for additional fields and open space. Bill Richardson, 93 La Paz, Campbell, appeared before the City Council and stated that he previously presented a video tape depicting the underutilization of open space in the city. Barbara Campbell, 35 E1 Pasco, Campbell, appeared before the City Council and expressed concerns about the site stating that it is in an isolated location and would not be safe for children. Garnetta Annabell, 951 Dry Creek Road, Campbell, appeared before the City Council and provided an update as to Open Space Authority projects, and spoke in support of the proposed easement to allow for future pedestrian/bicycle access across Highway 17. Merline Rasmussen, 9 La Paloma Street, Campbell, appeared before the City Council and spoke in support of the WTA development on the drive-in site. Jennifer Crone, 1569 Silacci Drive, Campbell, appeared before the City Council and questioned what public input has been solicited to date. Mayor Conant responded to Ms. Crone's request. There being no one else wishing to be heard, Mayor Conant closed the public hearing. Recess/Reconvene Mayor Conant declared a brief recess at 9:55 p.m. p.m. The City Council reconvened at 10:00 Minutes of 11/18/97 City Council Meeting 8 CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION: Councilmember Dougherty spoke against the WTA development citing arguments for and against selling the property. Councilmember Dougherty stated that the City cannot achieve its open space goals if the property is sold. Councilmember Dean spoke against the WTA development citing a number of reasons including the General Plan needs to be amended, a key component of which is the Open Space Element, traffic impacts, quality of life issues and recounting/reclassifying school sites as open space. Councilmember Furtado spoke in support of the WTA development citing a number of reasons including the cost to develop and subsequently maintain a park on this property, the project will serve as a catalyst to help redevelop the rest of the area which is significantly blighted, and the number of projects that have been identified and are recommended to be funded from the proceeds. Councilmember Furtado further stated that he would not support the four added Conditions of Approval recommended by the Planning Commission as stated in the Staff Report. Vice Mayor Watson spoke in support of the WTA development stating that the proposed development is appropriate for an industrial area. Vice Mayor Watson further stated that she would not support the four added Conditions of Approval as recommended by the Planning Commission as stated in the Staff Report. Mayor Conant spoke in support of the WTA development stating that she does not believe this piece of land is a place for open space, and it was never considered in the open space element when that element was developed. M/S: Watson/Furtado - that the City Council adopt Resolution 9306 certifying a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR-1996) and an Addendum making findings required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and making a Statement of Overriding Considerations in compliance with CEQA in the consideration of a project to redevelop the former Winchester Drive-in Site on property located at 535 Westchester Drive and 571 McGlincey Lane. CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION: Councilmember Dougherty raised a point of order, and discussed various points regarding the pending motion. City Attorney Seligmarm responded to the two legal issues raised by Councilrnember Dougherty Councilmember Furtado called for the question. Minutes of 11/18/97 City Council Meeting 9 VOTE ON THE MOTION: Motion adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers: Watson, Furtado, Conant NOES: Councilmembers: Dougherty, Dean M/S: Watson/Furtado - that the City Council introduce Ordinance 1953 amending the Land Use Element of the General Plan changing the Land Use Designation of 19.58 acres from Commercial Destination to Industrial to allow a Research and Development Business Park, and changing the Land Use Designation of 4 acres from Commercial Destination to Public/Semi-Public for use as Public Open Space on the property located at 535 Westchester and 571 McGlincey Lane for first reading. CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION: Councilmember Dougherty raised a point of order as previously stated. VOTE ON THE MOTION: Motion adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers: Watson, Furtado, Conant NOES: Councilmembers: Dougherty, Dean The City Clerk read the title of Ordinance No. 1953. M/S: Watson/Furtado - that further reading of Ordinance No. 1953 be waived. Motion adopted by a 3-2 vote, Councilmembers Dougherty and Dean voting No. M/S: Watson/Furtado - that the City Council introduce Ordinance 1954 approving a Planned Development Permit, Plans, Elevations, Development Schedule and Conditions of Approval to allow the construction of a 280,000 square foot Research and Development Park and designation of a 4 acre Public Open Space area, on property located at 535 Westchester Drive and 571 McGlincey Lane in a PD (Planned Development) Zoning District, application of Mr. Ken Neumeister, on behalf of WTA Development and Huetting & Schromm Inc., deleting Conditions of Approvals 2A3, 2A4, 62 and 63, for first reading. CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION: Councilmember Dougherty raised a point of order as previously stated. Minutes of 11118/97 City Council Meeting 10 Councilmember Dean stated that it was appropriate to pick a footprint now for a pedestrian bridge. VOTE ON THE MOTION: Motion adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers: Watson, Furtado, Conant NOES: Councilmembers: Dougherty, Dean The City Clerk read the title of Ordinance No. 1954. M/S: Watson/Furtado - that further reading of Ordinance No. 1954 be waived. Motion adopted by a 3-2 vote, Councilmembers Dougherty and Dean voting No. M/S: Watson/Furtado - that the City Council adopt Resolution 9307 approving a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (TS 9%01) to allow the creation of 4 lots and a remainder lot on property located at 535 Westchester Drive and 571 McGlincey Lane, subject to Conditions of ApProval deleting Condition 18 in attachment 4, page 7. CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION: Councilmember Dougherty raised a point of order as previously stated. Councilmember Dean suggested an amendment to the motion to include a condition that the two buildings adjacent to the mobile home park be constructed f'u'st so there will not be an on-going dust/dirt issue for the mobile home park. Vice Mayor WatsordCouncilmember Furtado were not willing to change the motion. VOTE ON THE MOTION: Motion adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers: Watson, Furtado, Conant NOES: Councilmembers: Dougherty, Dean M/S: Watson/Furtado - that the City Council adopt Resolution 9308 approving a Site and Architectural Approval (S 97-05) to allow the construction of two off- premise signs and landscaping at the McGlincey Lane entrance to the site. Motion adopted by the following roll call vote: Minutes of 11/18/97 City Council Meeting 11 CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION: Councilmember Dougherty raised a point of order as previously stated. VOTE ON THE MOTION: AYES: Councilmembers: Watson, Furtado, Conant NOES: Councilmembers: Dougherty, Dean Recess/Reconvene: Mayor Conant declared a five minute recess at 11:15 p.m. The City Council reconvened at 11:20 p.m. Convene Joint Meeting of City Council/Redevelopment Agency Board (*Joint Item) Mayor/Chairperson Conant convened the Joint Meeting of the City Council and Redevelopment Agency Board. Roll Call: Present: Agency Members: Dougherty, Watson, Dean, Furtado, Conant Absent: Agency Members: None 14. *Certify the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and Addendum; and Authorize Execution of a First Amended and Restated Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) with WTA Campbell Technology Park LLC detailing the Sale and Development of 19.58 Acres of the Former Winchester Drive-in Site (Resolution/Roll Call Vote) This is the time and place for a joint public hearing of the City Council and Redevelopment Agency to consider certification of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and Addendum; and Authorize Execution of a First Amended and Restated Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) with WTA Campbell Technology Park LLC detailing the Sale and Development of 19.58 Acres of the Former Winchester Drive-in Site. Redevelopment Manager Heirtrichs - Staff Report dated November 18, 1997. Jack Nagle, Redevelopment Agency Counsel, responded to questions raised by Council/Agency Member Dougherty regarding a limited liability corporation and concerns regarding the DDA. Minutes of 11/18/97 City Council Meeting 12 Tim Kelly, Keyser Marston, responded to questions raised by Council/Agency Member Dean regarding the Reuse Appraisal. Staff responded to questions raised in the discussion that followed regarding various aspects of the DDA, including the timing of the park construction. At the request of Mayor/Chairperson Conant, Jack Nagle, Redevelopment Agency Counsel, responded to the questions raised earlier by Don Hebard regarding the DDA. Following discussion regarding various aspects of the DDA, Mayor/Chairperson Conant declared the public hearing open and asked if anyone in the audience wished to be heard. Don Hebard, 205 Calado Avenue, Campbell, appeared before the City Council/Redevelopment Agency and requested clarification regarding the amount of proceeds which apparently does not include the proceeds from the sale of the other McGlincey Lane properties. Redevelopment Manager Heinrichs responded to Mr. Hebard's question regarding the proceeds. City Manager Strojny stated that staff will follow up with Hebard regarding his question regarding a detailed breakdown of off-site improvements. There being no one else wishing to speak, Mayor/Chairperson Conant closed the public hearing. COUNCIL/AGENCY DISCUSSION: Council/Agency Member Dougherty expressed his concerns with the DDA including those previously stated, and the 20 month time frame to complete the park, there is no obligation on the part of the developer to complete the public improvements required for ingress and egress to the park, the requirement to defend and the obligation to consult, and the negotiation process. Council/Agency Member Dean expressed his concerns with the DDA including the negotiation process, the first right of refusal, and the time frame for the City to complete the park. M/S: Watson/Furtado - that the City Council/Redevelopment Agency adopt Concurrent City Council Resolution 9309 and Redevelopment Agency Resolution 1997-13 certifying the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR-1996) and Addendum, making findings Required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and making a Statement of Overriding Considerations in compliance with CEQA in the consideration of a project to redevelop the former Winchester Drive-in site. Minutes of 11/18/97 City Council Meeting 13 CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION: Mayor/Chairperson Conant stated for the record that she did not come to the meeting this evening knowing how she would vote on any of these issues and listened to everyone who spoke, and will now vote accordingly. VOTE ON THE MOTION: Motion adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: Council/Agency Members: Watson, Furtado, Conant NOES: Council/Agency Members: Dougherty, Dean M/S: Watson/Furtado - that the City Council adopt Resolution 9310 authorizing execution of a First Amended and Restated Disposition and Development Agreement with WTA Campbell Technology Park LLC, making specified Findings, and stating Overriding Considerations in the consideration of a project to redevelop the former Winchester Drive-in site. Motion adopted by the following roll call vote: CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION: Councilmember Dean stated that there are other funding alternatives to provide funding for public improvements. VOTE ON THE MOTION: AYES: Councilmembers: Watson, Furtado, Conant NOES: Councilmembers: Dougherty, Dean M/S: WatsonfFurtado - that the Redevelopment Agency adopt Resolution 1997-14 authorizing execution of a First Amended and Restated Disposition and Development Agreement with WTA Campbell Technology Park LLC, making specified Findings, and stating Overriding Considerations in the consideration of a project to redevelop the former Winchester Drive-in site. Motion adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: Agency Members: Watson, Furtado, Conant NOES: Agency Members: Dougherty, Dean The joint portion of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting concluded at 12:15 a.m. Minutes of 11/18/97 City Council Meeting 14 · .o¥.CA,~ MEMORANDUM CITY OF CAMPBELL TO: Tim Haley DATE: Associate Planner Jan H~msley De,~ty City Clerk 535 Westchester Drive and 571 McGlincey Lane FROM: SUBJECT: November 20, 1997 At the regular City Council meeting of November 18, 1997, the City Council held a public hearing to consider an application by Ken Neumeister, on behalf of WTA Development and H6ettig & Schromm, Inc. for approval of certain applications for property located at 535 Westchester Drive in a P-D (Planned Development) District and 571 McGlincey Lane in an M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District. After due discussion and consideration, the City Council adopted the following Resolutions: Resolution No. 9306 - Certifying a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR-1996) and an Addendum making findings required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and making a Statement of Overriding Consid~rati0ns in compliance with CEQA in the consideration of a project to redevelop the former Winchester Drive-In Site on property located at 535 Westchester Drive and 571 McGlincey Lane; Resolution No. 9307 - Approving a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (TS 97-01) to allow the creation of 4 lots and a remainder lot on property located at 535 Westchester Drive and 571 McGlincey Lane, subject to Conditions of Approval; and Resolution No. 9308 - Approving a Site and Architectural Approval (S 97-05) to allow the construction of two off-premise signs and landscaping at the McGlincey Lane entrance to the site on property located at 571 McGlincey Lane, subject to:. Conditions of Approval. Please find certified copies of these Resolutions attached for your own records. Please note that I have prepared certified copies of these Resolutions for Kirk Heinrichs, Redevelopment Manager. RESOLUTION NO. 9306 BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL CERTIFYING A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SEIR-1996) AND AN ADDENDUM MAKING FINDINGS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) AND MAKING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS IN COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA IN THE CONSIDERATION OF A PROJECT TO REDEVELOP THE FORMER WINCHESTER DRIVE-IN SITE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 535 WESTCHESTER DRIVE AND 571 MCGLINCEY LANE: WHEREAS, the following recitals summarize information more fully set forth in the attached Exhibits A & B, which is incorporated in this Resolution by this reference. Various capitalized terms used in this Resolution are more fully defined in Exhibits A & B; and WHEREAS, in June 1992 the City Council certified an environmental impact report (the "1992 EIR") that evaluated the environmental impacts of development of a proposed destination retail center on the former Winchester Drive-In site (the "Property"); and WHEREAS, in April 1994 the Agency acquired the Property and thereafter conducted land use and economic feasibility studies and a developer selection process, from which WTA Development (the "Developer") was selected to negotiate a disposition and development agreement (the "DDA") for development of the Property; and WHEREAS, the Developer proposed development on the Property of an approximately 330,000 square foot research and development and light industrial business park with related on-site and off-site improvements (the "Original Project"); and WHEREAS, because the Original Project contained land uses that vary from the land uses evaluated in the 1992 EIR, the City caused preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (the "1996 SEIR") in accordance with the Califomia Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the local CEQA Implementing Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the 1996 SEIR builds upon and incorporates analysis from the 1992 EIR that was certified by the City Council and that remains valid, while providing new analysis of environmental impacts that will be different as a result of the change in land use proposed for the Original Project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Original Project on April 22, April 30, May 13, and May 27, 1997 recommending to the City Council certification of the 1996 SEIR and recommending findings for a statement of overriding considerations; and WHEREAS, on June 17, 1997 at a public hearing of the City Council to consider the Planning Commission's recommendation, and after receiving public testimony the City Council requested City Council Resolution No. 9306 535 Westchester/571 McGlincey Lane Page 2 that the Developer present a redesign of the Original Project to accommodate a four acre public open space on the Property; and WHEREAS, the Developer has submitted a revised application proposing a 280,000 square foot research and development business park on 19.58 acres with the Agency retaining four acres for public open space (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, the Agency has prepared an Addendum pursuant to Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines to address the changes proposed between the Project and the Original Project and the City Council finds that the Addendum is the appropriate environmental document to address the changes between the Project and the Original Project in that the project: 1) will not result in substantial changes which will require major revisions of the 1992 EIR or 1996 SEIR due to the involvement of new environmental effects or a substantial increase in severity of the previously identified significant effects; 2) has no substantial changes proposed under the Project which will require major revisions of the previous 1996 SEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 3) will not have any new significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR and significant effects previously examined will be generally less, but in no case more severe than shown in the 1992 EIR and 1996 SEIR; and WHEREAS, the City Council further finds that the one significant effect previously examined (Air Quality) will actually be less severe under the Project due to less traffic generation but still remains a significant impact under CEQA; and WHEREAS, the 1996 SEIR and the Addendum have been prepared to serve as the CEQA document for Planning Commission and City Council in consideration of the Planning Approvals for the Project; and WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency serves as the "lead agency" and the City serves as a "responsible agency" under CEQA in the preparation and certification of the 1996 SEIR and Addendum; and WHEREAS, through this resolution, the City Council desires to comply with the State CEQA, and the Local CEQA Implementing Guidelines in the consideration, certification, and use of the 1996 SEIR and Addendum in connection with their consideration of the Planning Approvals. RESOLVED that the City Council finds that the above recitals and the information contained in Exhibits A & B are accurate. FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council find and certify that the 1996 SEIR and Addendum have been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the Local CEQA Implementing Guidelines; that in light of the 1992 EIR, the 1996 SEIR and Addendum adequately addresses the environmental issues of the Project; and that the Planning Commission and the City Council have reviewed and considered the information contained in the City Council Resolution No. 9306 535 Westchester/571 McGlincey Lane Page 3 1996 SEIR and Addendum, in light of the 1992 EIR, prior to acting on the Project and the discretionary approvals necessary for the development of the Project. FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby finds and determines that the 1996 SEIR and Addendum reflect the independent judgment of the City Council. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby identifies the significant effects, makes a statement of overriding considerations, requires the mitigation measures, adopts the monitoring program to be implemented for such mitigation measures, and makes the findings set forth in detail in the attached Exhibits A & B. The statements, findings, and determinations set forth in Exhibits A & B are based on the previously certified 1992 EIR and 1996 SEIR, the Addendum and other information available to the City Council, and are made in compliance with Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines and Section 21081(a) of CEQA. Passed and adopted this lSth day of November , 1997 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: watson, Furtado, Conant NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Dougherty, Dean AB SENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ATTEST: j:Seir96 Barbara D. Conant, Mayor Anne Bybee, City Clerk I030Q6.PSO 12/30/96 EXHIBIT A ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, RECOMMENDATION OF MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING PROGRAM, AND FINDING OF FACTS FOR THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT OF THE WINCHESTER DRIVE-IN SITE AND THE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ADDENDUM PREPARED IN CONNECTION THEREWITH GENERAL INFORMATION A. Project Description. On January 7, 1997 the City Council/Agency certified the SEIR and authorized execution of the Original DDA. The original proposal examined by the 1996 SEIR consisted of a 330,000 square foot research and development/light industrial business park on 23.58 acres (the "Original Project"). On June 17, 1997 the City Council, upon recommendation of the Planning Commission requested WTA Campbell Technology Park (the "Developer") to present redesign of the Original Project to accommodate a four acre park or open space. The revised project (the "Project") under consideration by the City Council is the proposed sale and land use change of 19.58 acres from "Commercial" to "Industrial" for the development of an approximately 280,000 square foot research and developmem business park, and the proposed land use designation change of four acres from "Commercial" to "Public/Semi-Public" for use as public open space on the former Winchester Drive-In Site (the "Property") within the Central Campbell Redevelopment Project Area (the "Project Area") in the City of Campbell, California (the ~City"). The Revised Project building square footage will consist of three, two story buildings ranging in size from 60,000 square feet to 100,000 square feet, and a 40,000 square foot single story building. The proposed site plan of the Project is contained in the Addendum to the 1996 SEIR. As a result in the change in project description, the Agency and the Developer have agreed to a First Amended and Restated Disposition and Development Agreement (the "DDA") for the purpose of reducing the size of the Property to be acquired from 23.58 acres to 19.58 acres (the "Site") to accommodate a four acre public open space, to provide a more detailed description of the improvements to be developed on the Site, to make related adjustments to the purchase price, and to address specific circumstances that have changed since execution of the Original DDA; As was the case under the Original Project, the Project will require removal of the deteriorated asphalt paving currently on the Property, and site preparation activities such as minor excavation, grading, and possible importation of engineered fill. Off- site improvements will include extension of water and utilities to the Property, 1030Q6.PSO 12/30/96 Bo traffic mitigation improvements to affected intersections in the area, access street improvements and the extension of storm drain facilities across the Property. Background; The 1992 EIR. The Property has been vacant for the past 15 years, and has been under various ownerships. In 1984, Caz Development was approved to construct a 420,000 square foot light industrial project. However the project was never built. In 1991, Western Federal Savings (then the owner of the Property) submitted a Planned Development permit application (PD91- 04) to the City to construct a 245,000 square foot destination retail center on the Property. At the same time, the Agency initiated an amendment to the Central Campbell Redevelopment Plan to allow for the addition of the McGlincey Lane Expansion Area, within which the Property is located, to the Project Area. The PD permit application for the Property and the redevelopment area expansion were evaluated together under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., "CEQA") in an EIR during 1991-92 (SCH#91053013) (the "1992 EIR"). The 1992 EIR consists of a Draft EIR dated September 1991 (SCHg91053013) (the "1992 Draft EIR"), a Final EIR dated March 1992 (containing responses to comments received on the Draft EIR) (the "1992 Final EIR"), and Exhibit A to the 1992 Resolution (described below) (containing certain text additions to the foregoing documents). The 1992 EIR evaluated the then-proposed destination retail development of the Property at a project level of detail and evaluated the other projects proposed to be undertaken in the McGlincey Lane Expansion Area at a program level of detail. The 1992 EIR was certified by the City Council and Agency in a concurrent resolution on June 2, 1992 (Resolution Nos. 8322 and 1992-19, respectively) (the "1992 Resolution"). Findings were contained in the 1992 Resolution in accordance with CEQA, including a Statement of Overriding Considerations for impacts pertaining to regional air quality. The destination retail project for the Property evaluated in the 1992 EIR was not developed. The Agency purchased the Property in April 1994. Shortly thereafter, the Agency began a process to determine the optimum land use for the Property. In June 1994, a series of public meetings were held to receive early input into the decision making process. From those meetings a variety of ideas for the Property were obtained, including light industrial, commercial recreation, non-profit recreation, and other uses. These potential uses were then evaluated by an economic consulting fL'm, Economics Research Associates, to determine the financial feasibility of these uses. In August 1995, the Agency distributed a Request for Proposals (RFP) package to developers, corporations, or other parties that might be interested in purchasing and developing all or a portion of the Property. The Agency received eight proposals from developers. -2- After evaluation of the proposals, the Agency entered into an exclusive negotiating rights agreement with the Developer. In December 1996, Agency staff concluded negotiations with Developer on the proposed terms of a disposition and development agreement (a "DDA") which was presented for consideration by the Agency and City Council at a duly noticed public hearing on January 7, 1997. The 1996 SEIR and Addendum. The Original Project as proposed by the Developer differed in land use from the destination retail project that was proposed and evaluated in the 1992 EIR in terms of impacts related to traffic/circulation/parking, noise, air quality following buildout, land use, water supply, storm drainage, aesthetics, and alternatives. However, much of the information and analysis contained in the 1992 EIR remained valid for the Original Project and remains valid for the Project, particularly with regard to impacts involving air quality during construction, hazardous materials, cultural resources, geology, drainage/flooding, biological resources, cumulative impacts, and growth inducing impacts. Under these circumstances, the City Council determined that a Supplemental EIR (the "1996 SEIR") was required, in accordance with Section 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines (defined below), to build upon the relevant aspects of the 1992 EIR and address the different potential environmental impacts that may result from the change in the nature of the Original Project compared to the project that was evaluated in the 1992 EIR. The determination to prepare the 1996 SEIR was also consistent With the requirements of the 1992 Resolution calling for performance of further appropriate environmental analysis when a specific project proposal for the Property was presented for Planning Commission and City Council consideration. The 1997 Addendum to the 1996 SEIR was prepared to address the changes between the Original Project and the Project. The changes do not lead to new, more severe potential environmental effects in that there is a reduction of 50,000 square feet in industrial building area being replaced with a four acre public open space area. There have been no substantial changes in circumstances, or new information made available relevant to the Project which lead to new, more severe environmental effects. No new, different or newly feasible mitigation measures have been identified which are applicable to the Project. The 1996 SEIR incorporates by reference the 1992 EIR. The 1996 SEIR consists of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report dated October 1996 (SCH#96082018) (the "Draft 1996 SEIRD and a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report dated December 1996 (the ~Final 1996 SEIR") (containing responses to comments on, and making certain revisions to, the Draft 1996 SEIR), as more fully described below. 1030Q6.PS0 12/30/96 -3- I030Q6.P$O 12f30/~ The 1996 SEIR was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act CCEQA"), the State CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq., with particular reference to Section 15163), and the City's and Agency's Local CEQA Implementation Guidelines. CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines authorize preparation of a supplement to an EIR when certain conditions are present, and when limited additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation. A supplement to an EIR must be given the same kind of notice and review as is given to an initial EIR. To that end, the Agency issued a Notice of Preparation CNOP") for the Draft 1996 SEIR to the State Clearinghouse and others on August 7, 1996. The required 30-day notice period for the NOP ended on September 6, 1996. In addition, the Agency/City conducted a public scoping meeting for the Project on July 24, 1996. The Draft 1996 SE1R was circulated from October 2 to November 16, 1996 to various Federal, State, and local agencies for their review and comment. The Draft 1996 SEIR was also provided to the Campbell Library, and was made available to members of the general public. A public meeting on the Draft 1996 SEIR was held on October 29, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. at the Campbell City Hall Council Chambers. Approximately 10 members of the public were in attendance at the workshop. The Final 1996 SEIR was made available to the public and distributed to the public agencies that commented on the Draft 1996 SEIR on December 18, 1996. The Final 1996 SEIR contains responses to 12 letters received during the Draft 1996 SEIR comment period and to comments made at the October 29, 1996 public workshop on the Draft 1996 SEIR. The Final 1996 SEIR also contains text revisions to the Draft 1996 SEIR made a result of responding to the comments received. The 1996 SEIR (with the 1992 EIR as a reference) came before the Agency and the City Council on January 7, 1997 at a duly noticed joint public hearing, at which time the Agency and City Council heard oral testimony and received written communications. The City Council and Agency acting jointly certified the 1996 SEIR as complete and adequate. The 1997 Addendum has been prepared in compliance with Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines to address the changes from the Original Project to the Project together with any relevant changes in circumstances, new information or -4- ~O3OQ6.PSO 12/3o/96 potential new mitigation measures. While CEQA does not require a public review period for an Addendum, public notice of its availability for public review was provided beginning October 17, 1997, ten days before the Planning Commission public hearing to consider the Project, and 30 days prior to the City Council public hearing to consider the Project. Use of 1996 SEIR and Addendum; Imposition of Mitigation Measures. Two primary sets of local discretionary approvals are required before the Project may be developed. The ina'st set of approvals consists of approval by the Agency, and consent by the City Council (with specified findings under the Community Redevelopment Law), of the DDA. The DDA sets forth the terms and conditions under which the Agency will sell the property to the Developer. A primary condition to the sale of the property is that the Developer must first obtain the Planning Approvals. Approval of the DDA is scheduled for consideration at a duly noticed joint public hearing on November 18, 1997. The Planning Approvals constitute the second set of local discretionary approvals necessary to develop the Project. The Planning Approvals include a proposed General Plan amendment, a Planned Development Permit, approval of a vesting tentative map, and Site and Architectural approval. The Planning Commission considered the Project at a duly noticed public hearing on October 28, 1997 and recommended certification of the 1996 SEIR and the Addendum as adequate and complete in serving as the CEQA document for the Project and recommended to the City Council making the statement of overriding considerations. In Section IV of Exhibit A of Concurrent Resolution 1997-1 and 9181, the City Council and Agency adopted specified mitigation measures to address potentially significant environmental impacts of the Original Project that still apply to the Project. Those mitigation measures are reaffirmed by this resolution and incorporated herein. No new or newly feasible mitigation measures have been identified by the Addendum or the Commission. In particular, no new or newly feasible mitigation measures have been identified with respect to carbon monoxide emissions, the one unavoidable potentially significant environmental impact of the project. If the City Council approves the Planning Approvals in their policy discretion, these adopted mitigation measures will be imposed through conditions of the Planning Approvals. Imposition of EIR mitigation measures through conditions of land use approval is the standard procedure in Campbell, and most localities, for imposing mitigation measures related to specific projects. Nothing in this Exhibit A or the Resolution to which it is attached will affect the City Council's discretion, as applicable, in taking action on the Planning Approvals, or in imposing conditions of approval in addition to the mitigation measures adopted -5- below. H. OVERALL FINDINGS Before the Agency and City Council may act upon the discretionary approvals described in Section I.D above, CEQA mandates that the Agency and City Council consider the record and make certain findings required by Public Resources Code Sections 21081 and 21081(a) and Sections 15091, 15092 and 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The 1996 SEIR (which incorporates the 1992 EIR) and as amended by the 1997 Addendum, identifies potent':ally significant impacts on the environment which are likely to result from development of the Project. Based on the following findings as to each such impact, the 1996 SEIR concludes that changes or alterations have been adopted and will be incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen all identified potentially significant environmental impacts except for the local air quality impact identified in Section III. and in Section IV below. Further, as required by Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, a monitoring program is adopted for the mitigation measures stated in and required by this Exhibit A. The purposes of the findings contained in Exhibits A and B -include: (1) certifying the 1996 SEIR including the 1997 Addendum prepared for the discretionary approvals described in Section I.D above; (2) briefly describing and summarizing the potentially significant environmental impacts of the Project; (3) describing mitigation measures for, and alternatives to, the Project; (4) making a statement of overriding considerations for the one unavoidable, unmitigated impact and (5) presenting the Agency's and the City's findings as to the impacts of the Project after adoption or rejection of the mitigation measures and alternatives. In addition, Section IV of Exhibit A to the Concurrent Resolution of the City Council and the Agency, Resolution Nos. 9181 and 1997-1 respectively adopts mitigation measures for certain other environmental impacts that were addressed in the 1996 SEIR (including the 1992 EIR incorporated by reference), but determined not to be potentially significant adverse environmental impacts. The description of impacts contained in this Exhibit A is intended as a summary only. The 1996 SEIR, the documents which it incorporates (including the 1992 EIR) and the 1997 Addendum, describe these impacts in detail. The City Council and Agency certify that the 1996 SEIR with the 1997 Addendtun has been completed in compliance with CEQA and that it was presented to, and reviewed and considered by, the Pla~nlng Commission prior to acting on the discretionary approvals related to the Project. In so certifying, the City Council and Agency recognizes that there may be "differences" among and between the information and opinions offered in the documents and testimony that make up the record related to the City Council and Agency actions. Therefore, by these findings (including Exhibit A of Resolutions Nos. 9181 and 1997-1 by reference), the City Council and Agency -6- 1030Q6.PSO 12/30/96 III. acknowledge and certify the clarifications and/or modifications of the 1996 SEIR, the 1997 Addendum, as set forth in these f'mdings, and determines that these findings shall control and that the 1996 SEIR shall be deemed to be adequate subject to the determinations reached by the City Council and Agency in these findings, which are based on the substantial evidence in the record. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT On January 7, 1997 the City Council and Agency adopted Resolution Nos. 9181 and 199'7-1 (the "Prior Findings") certifying the 1996 SEIR as complete and adequate for the Original Project under the Original DDA. In compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) and Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Council and Agency in adopting the Prior Findings made the appropriate findings regarding potentially significant environmental impacts related to the Original Project as identified in the 1996 SEIR, including the potentially significant impacts identified in the 1992 EIR that have been found to remain relevant to the Original Project and the Project. The City Council and Agency reaffm-ns the analysis and findings made based on substantial evidence in the record including the 1992 EIR, 1996 SEIR and the Addendum because the Addendum identifies no new or more potentially significant environmental impacts, and no additional available mitigation measures, the Prior Findings and Mitigation Monitoring Program are hereby incorporated by reference. For each identified potentially significant impact, the Prior Findings: 1) summarizes the impact, 2) describes and adopts applicable mitigation measures for the impact, 3) adopts a monitoring program for the adopted mitigation measures in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, and 4) makes one of the findings required by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) and Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines. lye The City Council and Agency recognizes that in certain respects the Project contemplated under the DDA may have impacts less than those of the Original Project contemplated under the Original DDA as described in the Prior Findings. In particular, the Project will contain only 280,000 square feet of building space, not 330,000 square feet as noted in Section C.2.d of the Prior Findings. The Project will increase critical movement traffic volumes at the Camden/Union intersection less than the 1.35 percent as noted in Section A.2.a of the Prior Findings. Nonetheless, despite any reduction in impacts, the Commission recommends implementation of all mitigation measures described in the Prior Findings, and therefore reaff'mm the Prior Findings on these points as well. UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT IMPACT 1030Q6.PS0 12/30/96 -7- Ve I03oQ6.PSO 12/30/96 Based on the analysis contained in the 1996 SEIR (including the 1992 EIR), with the Addendum and Section III of this Exhibit A, the following unavoidable significant adverse impact of approval and implementation of the Project is identified: The increase in concentrations of carbon monoxide at the Camden/Curtner and Union/Campbell intersections as a result of anticipated Project-related traffic would represent a significant unmitigated air quality impact because 1-hour and 8-hour carbon monoxide exceedance would become worse under Project conditions. As to this significant environmental impact, the City Council and Agency f'mds that there are no feasible mitigation measures identified in the 1996 SEIR and Addendum that might reduce the level of significance of this impact, and specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the adoption of the only possible mitigation measure (as detailed in the Prior Findings) or the project alternatives (as detailed in Section V ). Therefore, in order to approve the Planning Approvals, the approval resolution or other official approval action must contain the City Council's statement of overriding considerations (contained in Exhibit B) in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081 Co) and Section 15093 Co) of the State CEQA Guidelines. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT A. OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION CRITERIA Introduction. This Section V provides an introduction to and overview of the extensive evaluation of alternatives to the Project and reuse of the Property that has been performed by the Agency and City Council, in consultation with nearby property owners and the general Campbell community, over the past several years. This section evaluates four specific alternative uses for the Property in terms of environmental effects and ability to achieve redevelopment and other community objectives. The information and analysis is drawn from Section 5 of the 1992 Draft EIR, Section 4 of the Draft 1996 SEIR (as modified in the Final 1996 SEIR)including the 1997 Addendum, the ERA Alternatives Study, the Staff Reports on Alternatives, and other information known through deliberations and discussions on alternative uses for the Property. Overview of Process Since 1992 EIR. The 1992 EIR evaluated several alternatives for the Property in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines, including the No Project Alternative and several alternative land uses on the Property. After the Agency purchased the Property in 1994, it conducted an extensive public process to determine the optimum land use for the Property. A variety of land use concepts for the Property were developed, and were formally evaluated in the ERA Alternatives Study (1995) and the Staff Reports on -8- Alternatives (1996). The purpose of the ERA Alternatives Study, the Staff Reports on Alternatives, and the Agency's public input process was to help determine a land development strategy that balanced environmental consideratiom, Campbell's financial and non-fmancial objectives for the Property, and the ability to improve the McGlincey Lane area's infrastructure. Through a series of meetings and evaluations, four land use alternatives for the site were developed, taking into - account and building upon the evaluation of land use alternatives set forth in the 1992 EIR. The predominant land uses in the four alternatives were: commercial recreation, industrial, residential, and public park. Because there was an interest in relocating the City's corporation yard to the Property, each alternative then had two sub-alternatives or variations, one with and one without the corporation yard. The land sale or land lease revenue potential of each alternative was analyzed, in addition to overall municipal cost and revenue implications. The cost analysis included roadway improvements, utilities upgrading, park development, park maintenance, and other General Fund service costs. The Agency's evaluation on how to proceed with the use of the Property also considered the compatibility of the use with the surrounding neighborhood, other environmental issues as outlined in the 1992 EIR, the desires of the community, and potentially creative proposals which developers would be able to bring into the process. After the ERA Alternatives Study was received and reviewed by the Agency Board, the Agency decided to issue an RFP to developers, corporations, and other parties that might be interested in purchasing and developing all or a portion of the Property. The RFP did not restrict the proposals to a certain land use or development type; rather, it identified the range of four land uses that had been evaluated in the ERA Alternatives Study and encouraged submittals for creative projects that could meet the City's and Agency's f'mancial and non- financial objectives. The Agency received eight proposals from developers; four for commercial recreation, three for research and development/light industrial, and one for a private school. Upon extensive evaluation and public discussion, the Agency Board chose to negotiate with the Developer for the sale of the Property and development of the Project because the Project appears to best meet the goals and objectives established for the Property, taking into account relevant environmental impacts. i030Q6.PSO 12/30/96 -9- 1030Q6.PSO 12/30/96 Redevelopment and Planning Objectives. In determining what land use alternatives were viable for the Property, several objectives were considered including the following (the "Redevelopment and Planning Objectives"): a) Land Use Compatibility. The Agency evaluated what kind of land use would be compatible where the surrounding land use consisted of primarily industrial uses bordered by a freeway. This setting makes a residential reuse of the Property very problematic. Additionally, residents of the Paseo de Palomas Mobile Home Park immediately adjacent to the Property are particularly concerned with a recreational use that might include sports activities, such as a golf driving range or sports fields where noise would be a concern. Development of a research and development/light industrial business park on the Property is generally viewed as the most compatible land use. The site reserved for a public park or open space in the Project as more recently modified is at the far side of the Property from the mobile home park and will minimize any effect on the mobile homes. b) Redevelopment Goals and Objectives. The Redevelopment Plan identifies several goals for the McGlincey Lane area, including improvement of Cristich Lane to a public street, extending storm drain to address existing point and non-point source water pollution concerns, improving water supply to provide adequate fire flow and to address inadequate fire suppression conditions in the area, and to facilitate the development of the Property which has been a blight in the area for 15 years. Existing redevelopment funds and anticipated tax increment revenues are not adequate to finance these capital projects. The net proceeds generated by the sale of the Property and the development of the site itself could help finance many of these improvements. Without such net sale proceeds, Agency tax increment revenue from the area is not likely to be sufficient to fund new redevelopment activities in the forseeable furore. c) Financial Feasibility. The City loaned the Agency $3.34 million to acquire the Property on a short term basis to help facilitate its development. The Agency determined that, at a minimum, the sale of the Property should generate enough revenue to retire the Agency's debt to the City, net of any Agency costs and obligations associated with the development of the Property. Based on the commercial recreation projec.ts proposed, none were determined to be financially feasible under this standard, while the proposed research and development Project is estimated to provide a net return sufficient to fund certain public improvements including storm drain -10- d) and a four acre public open space area of benefit to the McGlincey Lane area and yield additional funds in excess of $2 million after costs and expenses. Public Open Spaces. In addition to the acquisition costs, developing and maintaining the entire Property as a public park would require an additional $5 to $7 million depending upon the extent of on-site improvements and required off-site improvements needed to develop adequate access and infrastructure to the Property. The focus of the Open Space Element of the General Plan is on creating more neighborhood parks; and in particular, the east side of Campbell is deficient of neighborhood park space. However, the Property is challenged in meeting many of the criteria established on page 8 of the Open Space Element of the General Plan for acquiring and developing open space. For example, the Property is not within walking distance to a significant number of Campbell neighborhoods, it is not particularly visible or accessible to Campbell residents due to lack of convenient pedestrian and vehicular access, and the frequency of commercial trucks and vehicles in the area does not provide a desirable condition for public open space and park land as defined by the Open Space Element.. Given the costs for development, a park occupying most of the 23.58-acre Property does not appear to be financially feasible for a City which already supports a City-wide 30-acre recreational 'facility at the Community Center and John D. Morgan Park, a 25 acre public park. In addition, local youth sports groups such as the Campbell Little League, Bobby Sox, and Soccer Leagues have not expressed support, and other public agencies either did not express support or were not financially able to consider a partnership with Campbell for development of the site. In the Commission's April and May 1997 consideration of the Original Project, substantial community interest was expressed in setting aside some portion of the Property for public park or open space use. Based on the community interest, the Commission has determined to recommend a four-acre public open space. The response by the Commission to recommend a public open space component is at least partially to address the need of a four to six acre 'neighborhood ' size park while preserving the development of the balance of the site for an economically viable commercial project that addresses the Agency's redevelopment goals and objectives in 1030~.P~O 1:2/30/96 -3.3.- These Redevelopment and Planning Objectives have been distilled from the General Plan, the Redevelopment Plan, the 1992 Report to City Council, the Agency's Implementation Plan, hearings and comment on the Original Project, and other evidence in the record, and provide a basis for evaluating the ability of various alternatives to satisfy the Agency/City goals for redevelopment of the Property. The 1996 SEIR Alternatives Analysis. Several of the land use alternatives for the Property evaluated in the 1992 EIR remain relevant and valid as alternatives to the Project for CEQA purposes. The analysis of these alternatives is incorporated by reference in the 1996 SEIR and is summarized in Section V.B below. Specifically, SecfionV.B. 1 evaluates the No Project Alternative, as required by CEQA. Section V.B.2 evaluates two land use alternatives for the Properly that were initially considered in the 1992 EIR and that have been a focus of cominuing consideration by the Agency over the past three years, as outlined above: a residential use, and a large public park use. The only uses of the Property that have received serious consideration in the ERA Alternatives Study and subsequent Agency deliberations, but that was not evaluated from an environmental alternatives perspective in the 1992 EIR are the commercial recreation use and a small public park or open space in conjunction with light industrial development, which has now become part of the project itself. Section V.B.3 below provides a summary of the environmental and other impacts of a commercial recreation use, based on the new discussion of that alternative contained in.tbe 1996 SEIR. The 1992 EIR and the 1996 SEIR did not analyze any alternative location for the Project. Recent court cases suggest that CEQA may, where appropriate, require an analysis of alternative locations for a project, as well as alternative projects on the same site. CEQA requires that the alternatives be capable of obtaining the basic objectives of the proposed project (Section 15126(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines). For the following reasons, it has been concluded that there is no feasible alternative location for the Project. The Property is the only relatively large, currently undeveloped site in the City of Campbell or immediate environs that could accommodate a high-end research and development park of the size and scope contemplated for the Project. Assembling a sufficiently large site to accommodate the Project at another location in Campbell or its environs would result in business and/or residential relocation, demolition, public infrastructure improvements, and conflicting land use in built-up neighborhoods that would cause more disruption and adverse environmental impact than would development of the Project on the vacant, relatively isolated Property. The costs of land assembly would be several times greater than the land cost of the Property, making development of the Project at another location in the general vicinity of the Property economically impractical for the Agency and any private developer. In short, an alternative location for the Project would be prohibitively costly to assemble and would cause more severe environmental impacts than locating the Project on the Property. Consequently, consistent with Section 15125(d)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, an alternative location for the Project is found to be infeasible and has not been evaluated further in the 1996 SEIR or this Exhibit A. ~O~OQ~.l~o Be SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES AND REASONS FOR REJECTION Following is a summary of the proposed land use alternatives for the Property evaluated in the 1996 SEIR (including relevant alternatives from the 1992 EIR as incorporated by reference). The reasons for their selection as the most viable alternatives are addressed in SectionV.A above. The likely env/ronmental impacts of each alternative and each alternative's ability to meet the Redevelopment and Planning Objectives are briefly summarized and are compared to the environmental impacts and potential of the Project to meet the Redevelopment and Planning Objectives. Each alternative is rejected as being infeasible because it fails to meet one or more of the Redevelopment or Planning Objectives in a timely manner and/or would cause various adverse environmental or fiscal impacts that can be avoided through implementation of the Project. The reasons for rejection of the alternatives are summarized below and are supported by substantial evidence in the record. The No Project Alternative. The No Project Alternative means that the Property would remain vacant (unless the Agency permitted reuse for one of the other alternatives analyzed separately below). Potentially significant adverse impacts of the Project related to traffic, noise, air qu~l_ity, construction impacts, b~7.nrdous materials, seismic safety, and cultural resources would generally not occur under the No Project Alternative since such impacts are generally associated with the development process. The vacant site would be less aesthetically appealing to some observers then a well designed Project. On balance, the No Project Alternative would have -13- the fewest adverse environmental effects and would be considered the environmentally superior alternative among those evaluated in the 1992 EIR and the 1996 SEIR. Most important, the No Project Alternative would prevent the reuse of the largest and one of the most blighted parcels in the Project Area, thereby frustrating an essential purpose of the Redevelopment Plan and the Agency's Implementation Plan. For these reasons, the No Project Alternative fundamentally fails to achieve the underlying Redevelopment and Planning Goals of the Agency and the City. On this basis, the finding is made tt~t specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the No Project Alternative, and the No Project Alternative is hereby rejected even though it might prove to be an environmentally superior alternative. Alternative Land Uses on Property Evaluated in 1992 EIR (as Updated in 1996). Several alternative land uses for the Property were considered in the 1992 EIR. Two of the alternatives - residential and larger public park - are relevant to the current consideration of alternatives to the Project because they reflect two of the four basic alternatives considered in the ERA Alternatives Study, the Staff Reports on Alternatives, and the Agency's recent deliberations on appropriate uses for the Property. Following is a brief summary of those two alternatives that builds upon the material in the 1992 EIR. lO~OQ6.P,Jo llt3ot96 a) Residential. Although the traffic generation rates are lower for residential uses on the Property than for commercial, office or industrial uses like the proposed Project, residential uses generate traffic in both the morning and evening peak periods. Residential uses also place a higher demand on City services and generate limited City revenues. A residential use in the Property would not be compatible with the elevated noise levels generated from SR-17 traffic, and marketing a residential development on the site would be difficult, given its access through and proximity to the McGlincey Lane industrial area. In summary, a residential use of the Property might be marginally superior to the Project from a traffic and air quality perspective, but would cause greater land use conflict and noise impacts than the Project. Overall, it is difficult to judge if the residential alternative would be superior or inferior to the Project'from an environmental perspective. On the other hand, the residential alternative would clearly fail to meet Redevelopment and Planning Objectives related to land use -1.4- b) compatibility. For these reasons, the finding is made that specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the residential alternative for the Property, and the residential alternative is hereby rejected. Large Public Park. During the public scoping meetings for the 1992 EIR, several comments from nearby residents suggested the City consider a park/open space use as the main use for the Property. In June 1990, the Cambrian Community Council also recommended that a park be considered for the Property as part of a mixed use project. A public park use would generate less traffic than the Project, and generally would produce more limited environmental effects related to air 'quality, construction impacts, hazardous materials impacts, cultural resource impacts, and seismic safety impacts. ~o:~o~o From this perspective, a large public park use would be the environmentally superior alternative for the Property (other than the No ' Project Alternative). However, a public park use would be susceptible to the same negative land use compatibility effects as a residential use at the Property, i.e., traffic noise and air quality impacts from proximity to SR-17. In addition, the Property would have no direct access to a public street and is not centrally located to the remainder of the Union Avenue neighborhood. Drive-by surveillance of the site would be difficult. Lack of public visibility is often a factor leading to security and vandalism at parks. As noted in Section V.A.3 above, the Property is challenged in meeting many of the General Plan Open Space Element criteria for suitable public park locations. Finally, a public park use alternative for the entire 23.58 acre site could cause negative financial impacts to the City and Agency as described in Section VI.A.3. Park development could require $5-7 million of City funds and approximately $350,000 in annual maintenance costs could further impact the General Fund, possibly precluding funding other competing capital projects, including implementation of the Campbell Community Center Master Plan and future park acquisition and development in other areas of the City. The Agency would lose the ability to generate net sale proceeds to fund other activities in the McGlincey Lane area or to repay the City loan. In April and May 1997, the Planing Commi.~sion considered the Original Project and after recommending certification of the 1996 SEIR,' recommended to the City Council that the project be redesigned to allow -J. 5- 12/30/96 for incorporation of a four acre public open space amenity on the Site. On June 17, 1997, the City Council in considering the Original Project and in response to the recommendation of the Planning Commission, requested that the Developer submit a redesign of the Original Project, to permit consideration of a four acre public open space area. The Planning Conmfission, in making its recommendation, acknowledged that while it was not desirable to develop the entire Site as public open space, the Open Space Element of the General Plan identifies a need for "neighborhood" size parks or opens space sites ( 4 to 6 acres in size), particularly in the Union Avenue area (including the McGlincey Lane area). And while it is acknowledged that this area may not conform to all Open Space criteria, this condition does not create a potential adverse environmental impact. In fact, it may provide environmental benefit. For these reasons, the Commission has recommended that a four -acre park or open space be included in the Project as revised. This acreage can be set aside without an unacceptable significant effect on the economics of developing the Property and furthering the redevelopment goals in the area. In summary, while a public park use over the entire Site would prove environmentally superior to the Project, that alternative would fail to satisfy nearly all of the community's Redevelopment and Planning Objectives in the McGlincey Lane area. For these reasons, the finding is made that specific economic, social or other considerations make feasible the partial use of the Site for public open space use and infeasible the entire use of the Site for public park and the use of the entire Site for a public park alternative is hereby rejected. The Commercial Recreation Alternative. A commercial recreation land use on the Property might consist of a golf practice range, a family recreation complex, a buffer area between the site and the mobile home park, and possible inclusion of the City corporation yard. The golf practice range is assumed to have 50 stations on two levels, and a club house/pro shop of about 2,000 square feet. The family recreation complex may include uses such as. an arcade, restaurant, miniature golf course, go-cart track, batting cages, bumper rides, children rides, and "soft play" area. Most of these activities would be outdoors. A commercial recreation alternative ~vould generate approximately 5,800 vehicle trips daily (as opposed to an estimated 2,538 daily trips for the Project), but the trips would likely be distributed more evenly throughout a 24-hour period than the AM/PM peak distribution associated with the proposed Project. A substantial number of trips would be generated in the late afternoon and evening, when children are not in school. This alternative would also generate higher noise levels than the proposed Project, because the majority of activities would take place outdoors. Several activities, such as go-carts, bumper cars, and children rides, could generate substantial noise levels which may impact the Paseo de Palomas mobile home park. Other variants of a commercial recreation alternative might have fewer high-noise impacts, but any commercial recreation variant involving outdoor activities is likely to have noise impacts that exceed those anticipated for the Project. Environmental effects of a commercial recreation alternative related to construction impact, hazardous materials, and cultural resource disturbance are likely to be similar to the anticipated impacts of the Project. A commercial recreation alternative would fail to meet fundamental Redevelopment and Planning Objectives related to land use compatibility problems with the adjacent mobile home park (see Section VA.3 above). One variant of the commercial recreation alternative considered by the Agency was the proposal in response to the development RFP submitted by a non-profit recreational entity called "Sports Mall". When other development proposals were rejected by the Agency Board, the "Sports Mall Task Force" was provided an opportunity to demonstrate the financial viability of their project. The Sports Mall proposal includes various indoor and outdoor sports activities on a lease or membership basis. An independent economic report commissioned by the Task Force indicated that financing for such a project was tenuous. It was determined that this kind of facility would likely serve as a regional rather than local resource, and no other public agencies were willing to step forward at that time to participate in financing such a project. The Task Force was not able to adequately demonstrate the financial viability of their project, and the proposed sports mall concept was not considered further. Ce iO3OQ6.Pso 12/3o/96 For these reasons, the finding is made that specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the commercial recreation alternative for the Property, and the commercial recreation alternative is hereby rejected. OVERALL FINDING REGARDING ALTERNATIVES After consideration of a reasonable range of identified alternatives to the Project, the Agency and the City Council find that none is as beneficial to the community as the proposed Project in terms of achieving the Redevelopment and Planning Objectives, and that because of each alternative's inability to achieve one or more of the Redevelopment and Planning Objectives, each -3.7- identified alternative is rejected as being infeasible. I030Q6.PSO 12/3o/96 -18- RESOLUTION NO. 9307 BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL APPROVING A VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP (TS 9%01) TO ALLOW THE CREATION OF 4 LOTS AND A REMAINDER LOT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 535 WESTCHESTER DRIVE AND 571 McGLINCEY LANE. APPLICATION OF MR. KEN NEUMEISTER, ON BEHALF OF WTA DEVELOPMENT AND HEUTTIG & SCHROMM, INC. FILE NO. TS 97-01. After notification and public hearing, as specified by law, and after presentation by the Community Development Staff, proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed. After due consideration of all evidence presented, the City Council did find as follows with respect to application TS 97-01. The proposed lots are of sufficient size and shape to accommodate the intended mixed uses The proposed map is consistent with the Planned Development Application (PD 96-06) which has been recommended for approval subject to the proposed conditions of approval. o The proposed subdivision layout provides sufficient open space to accommodate the intended users of the facility and the surrounding area with inclusion of a 4.0 acre public open space area. The design of the proposed subdivision allows for the appropriate grading and drainage facilities, public utility easements, improvement of utilities, and private driveway and access easements necessary to serve these properties. o The 1996 SEIR and its addendum prepared for the development of the project identifies the impacts associated with the development of this site with four industrial buildings ° Absent the easement, the development of the industrial park would impede access to and from the existing and proposed recreation areas in the City of Campbell. Based on the foregoing findings of fact, the City Council further finds and concludes that, subject to the imposed conditions: The proposed subdivision is consistent with the policies and intent of the recommended General Plan Amendment. ° o The proposed subdivision does not impair the balance between the housing needs of the region and the public service needs of the residents and available fiscal and environmental resources; The site is physically suitable for the proposed type of development and the proposed lot pattern. City Council Resolution No. 9307 TS 97-01 - 535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 2 The design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities. o The subdivision of the property does not alter the intensity or impacts of the project as examined in the SEIR previously certified by the City Council on January 7, 1997, and as discussed in the addendum, the revised project presents a less intensive use than the original project. ° There is no substantial evidence that the subdivision of the property, in-and-of itself, may have a significant effect on the environment. The subdivision of the property will not substantially change the proposed project from that examined in the SEIR in any way that would involve new significant environmental effects or a substantially increase the severity of any previously identified significant effects. ° The subdivision of the property will not substantially change the circumstances under which the project is undertaken in a way which would involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. The subdivision of the property does not present any new information not previously known at the time the SEIR was certified that would indicate that: a. The project will have any significant effects not previously discussed in the SEIR, or b. That any effects will be substantially more severe; or c. That mitigation measures found not to be feasible would not be feasible; or d. That mitigation measures or altematives exist that are considerably different from those analyzed in the SEIR. 10. The subdivision does not require any minor additions or changes to the SEIR or its addendum. The applicants are hereby notified, as part of this application, that they are required to meet the following conditions in accordance with the Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the State of Califomia. The lead department with which the applicant will work is identified. Additionally, the applicants are hereby notified that they are required to comply with all applicable Codes and Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the State of California that pertain to this development and are not contained herein. PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS Map Requirements: Prior to issuance of any building permits for the site, the applicant shall prepare and submit a Final Tract Map for review by City Engineer and recordation upon City approval. The current fee for processing the Final Tract Map is $1,380 plus City Council Resolution No. 9307 TS 97-01 -535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 3 o $25/lot. Applicant shall provide all documents as required for review and approval of the Final Map. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the applicant must provide evidence from each utility and special district that they approve of the filing of the Final Map as submitted, that the easements shown on the map are adequate for each utility to serve the proposed development and that the procedure for abandonment of any existing easements is acceptable. Dedication to Ci _ty: Prior to approval of the final map, the applicant shall dedicate, acquire land for dedication and/or obtain dedications as necessary to accommodate construction of the required public street improvements for: the 45-foot public street access to McGlincey Lane; the 50-foot public street across the south end of the site; the right of way needed to construct the cul-de-sac and intersection at McGlincey Lane as shown on the approved tentative map; and the right of way/easements necessary (15-foot minimum) to construct the public storm drain system through the development and through the private Paseo de Palomas street. Applicant shall prepare all documents necessary to obtain the dedications and/or remove any existing easements, provide all information required for reviewing these documents and shall pay all costs associated with obtaining the required dedications and/or easements and recordation of these dedications. Should it be necessary for the City to implement eminent domain proceedings in order to obtain right-of-way, the applicant shall pay all costs associated with the condemnation proceedings, including attorney's fees. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the applicant must determine the adequacy of the existing storm drainage easement along Pasco de Palomas. If the existing easement is not adequate for construction of the proposed parallel/upsized storm drain from the site to the existing system in Union Avenue, the applicant shall provide all documents necessary for the City to obtain this easement. These documents shall include all engineering plans, plats and descriptions of the easement required for construction of this storm drain facility. Storm Drain Area Fee: Prior to issuance of any building permits for the site, the applicant shall pay the required storm drain area fee of $2,500/acre. Grading and Drainage Plan: Prior to approval of the final map or issuance of any building permits for the site, the applicant shall conduct hydrology studies as necessary, prepare grading and drainage plans and pay fees required to obtain necessary grading permits for the site. Grading plans shall include the disposition of and abandonment of existing utility lines as necessary. City Council Resolution No. 9307 TS 97-01 -535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 4 Hydrology studies, grading and storm drainage plans shall include the public access road from McGlincey to the site. Storm drainage plans shall include existing invert and top of pipe elevations of the SCVWD culvert crossing the proposed roadway. Hydrology studies and storm drainage design shall include the drainage area bounded by Highway 17 to the west, Curtner Avenue to the south, the City limits to the east and the existing storm drain in McGlincey Lane easterly of the development to the north. The storm drainage plans for this drainage area shall include removal, replacement and/or installation of new storm lines as needed in McGlincey and Cristich Lanes to connect to a new and/or upsized storm drainage line required through the development, through the Paseo de Palomas private road and ultimately connecting to the existing storm drainage facilities in Union Avenue. Completion of this design is required to determine the appropriate size, location and invert elevations of the storm drainage facilities to be constructed on site that will allow for the future construction of the off-site storm drainage improvements in McGlincey Lane and Cristich Lane. The applicant shall be required to construct only the portions of this storm drainage facility that are on-site and the connection to the existing system in Union Avenue through the storm drain easement in Paseo de Palomas. The applicant shall provide a "stub-out" to Cristich Lane to allow for the future storm drain construction off-site. Standard Street Improvements: Prior to approval of the final map or issuance of any building permits for the site, the applicant shall prepare plans, pay fees, post securities and provide insurance as required to obtain an encroachment permit to construct public street improvements as required by the City Engineer. Public street improvement plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer licensed in the State of California and shall include: · Construction of the 45-foot public street access to McGlincey Lane to include: 30-foot of asphalt concrete roadway; a standard marginal 5-foot sidewalk and a 5-foot landscaping strip along the west side of the street; a 5-foot landscaping strip along the east side of the street; no parking signs, signing and striping, standard curb and gutter, storm drainage facilities and street lighting facilities along both sides of the street; construction of driveways as required for existing parcels; and all conforms necessary to accommodate the existing improvements on the parcels south of the proposed development. · Construction of a 50-foot right of way public street along the southern frontage of the property to include: 35-feet of asphalt concrete roadway; standard driveway approaches for the entrances to the development; a standard marginal 5-foot sidewalk; and a 10-foot Public Utilities Easement along the north side of the street; a 5-foot landscape strip and a 5-foot separated walk along the southern side of the street; no parking signs for the northern side of the street, signing and striping, standard curb and City Council Resolution No. 9307 TS 97-01 - 535 Westchester Drive/S71 McGlincey Lane Page 5 gutter, storm drainage facilities and street lighting along both sides of the street All improvements shall be designed and constructed to allow future continuation of the improvements on Cristich Lane and an appropriate cul-de-sac terminus shall be designed and constructed at the western end of the new public street. · Construction of the intersection as shown on the approved tentative map and as directed by the City Engineer. Intersection improvements may include sidewalks, handicap ramps, signing, striping and increased street widths as shown on the approved tentative map. · All streets and their intersections with access points to the site shall be designed to accommodate all truck turning movements. Improvements at the west end of the new public street shall be constructed to allow for a future connection to Cristich Lane. Street trees shall be of a type that will not grow to encroach or interfere with public traffic. · Construction of a complete traffic signal system and equipment, signing, striping, utility relocation and related improvements to provide for signalization of the intersection of Union Avenue and McGlincey Lane. The traffic signal system and equipment shall include but not be limited to: vehicle detection equipment, traffic signal standards, street lighting and electrical services; pavement repair; signing and striping and other components as required by the City Traffic Engineer. · Reconfiguration of the intersection of McGlincey Lane and Curtner Avenue to provide for a free right turn lane from southbound McGlincey to westbound Curtner, a free left turn from eastbound Curtner to northbound McGlincey and stop controls for westbound Curtner east of the intersection as directed by the City Engineer. Existing pavement in this intersection may need to be resurfaced to allow for the additional lanes and new striping pattern. · Provide signing, striping and pavement reconstruction at the intersection of McGlincey Land and the new public access road as necessary to provide lane configurations as directed by the City Engineer. · Construction of the storm drain facility extending from Cristich Lane through the development via storm drain easements to connect to the existing system in Union Avenue. Construction of storm drain facilities for all public streets including the public access road from McGlincey. Completion of Public Street Improvements: Prior to issuance of occupancy for the site, all public street improvements as required by the encroachment permit must be completed and accepted by the City Engineer and the applicant must provide the one-year maintenance security. Landscaping Maintenance Agreements: Prior to recordation of the final map, the applicant shall prepare and execute a landscape maintenance agreement requiring the development to post securities and maintain all landscaping, irrigation and irrigation facilities, walls and fences within all public areas, including the public access street to City Council Resolution No. 9307 TS 97-01 - 535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 6 o. .. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. McGlincey Lane and the new public access road adjacent to the property. This agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to being executed by both parties and recorded by the City. Underground Utilities: All new on-site utilities shall be installed underground per Section 20.36.150 of the Campbell Municipal Code for any new or remodeled buildings or additions. Applicant shall comply with all plan submittals, pennittin~ and fee requirements of the serving utility company. Applicant shall submit a Utility Coordination Plan and Schedule for approval by the City Engineer for installation of all utilities. The plan shall minimize the damage to all public facilities. Soils Report: Engineer Provide a soils report prepared by a registered Geotechnical or Civil Title Report: Provide a current Preliminary Title Report. Street Name: The final map shall contain the City-approved street name for the new public street. Storm Water Management: Comply with the Regional Water Quality Control Board's industrial storm water general permit and California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook, prepared by Storm Water Quality Task Force, Santa Clara Valley Water District. Coordination with Capital Improvement/Other Projects: Applicant shall coordinate with other city improvement projects within the vicinity. Location and installation of off-site improvements that may be required by other districts and utility companies shall be approved by the City. Monumentation: Prior to recording the Final Map, the applicant shall provide security guaranteeing the cost of setting all monuments as shown on the Final Map. Street Improvement Agreement: Prior to the approval of the final map, the applicant shall execute a street improvement agreement and post securities to guarantee the installation of the required street improvements. Notification to Adjacent Properties: Prior to any construction activity on the development, applicant shall notify all adjacent properties, including the management of the adjacent mobile home park. Notification shall include a contact number for the developer which can be used by the property owners during construction should questions or problems arise. City Council Resolution No. 9307 TS 97-01 - 535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 7 FIRE DEPARTMENT CONDITION 17. Emergency Vehicle Egress Access Easements: Emergency Vehicle Egress Access easements (EVEA) shall be granted and recorded to the fire department for emergency egress. PASSED AND ADOPTED this lSth day of vote: November., 1997, by the following roll call AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: watson, Furtado, Conant COUNCILMEMBERS: Dougherty, Dean COUNCILMEMBERS: None COUNCILMEMBERS: None Barbara D. Conant, Mayor ATTEST: A~ CORRECT ~PY OF THE ORI~I~ OR RLE IN THIS OFFICE. A~: ANNE BYBEE, CITY o~RK, Ot~ RESOLUTION NO. 9308 BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL APPROVING A SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL (S 97-05) TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO OFF-PREMISE SIGNS AND LANDSCAPING AT THE McGLINCEY LANE ENTRANCE TO THE SITE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 571 McGLINCEY LANE. APPLICATION OF MR. KEN NEUMEISTER, ON BEHALF OF WTA DEVELOPMENT AND HEUTTIG & SCHROMM, INC. FILE NO. S 97-05 After notification and public heating, as specified by law, and after presentation by the Community Development Staff, environmental consultant, Redevelopment Staff, proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed. After due consideration of all evidence presented, the City Council finds as follows with respect to application S 97-05: The proposed entry signage and landscaping is a permitted use for the site and is consistent with the M-1-S (Light Industrial) zoning designation and Industrial General Plan land use designation for the site. The proposed project is of an appropriate scale and design and is compatible with the existing surrounding uses. The proposed project site is of adequate size to develop the proposed entry feature and street. Based on the foregoing findings of fact, the City Council further finds and concludes that: The establishment, maintenance or operation of the use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, or be detrimental or injurious to the property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City. The proposed project will aid in the harmonious development of the surrounding environment. The proposed use is compatible with the surrounding uses in the area, subject to the Conditions of Approval. City Council Resolution No. 9308 S 97-05 - 535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 2 The conditions of approval are roughly proportional and reasonably related in nature and extent to the impacts of the project. Further, the applicants are notified as part of this application that they are required to comply with all applicable Codes and Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the State of California which pertain to this application and are not herein specified. And, that this approval is granted subject to the following Conditions of Approval. Landscaping Plan: Landscaping plan indicating type and size of plant material and location of the irrigation system, type and design of proposed walls or fencing to be submitted to the Planning Department and approved by the Site and Architectural Review Committee prior to issuance of building permits. The minimum size of trees and shrubs planted on-site, except as modified by conditions contained herein, shall be as follows: A. Trees shall be a minimum of 15 gallon. Twenty four inch box trees shall be required as a mitigation measure for all removed trees. B. Shrubs shall be a minimum of 5 gallons with the exception of accent shrubs that shall be a minimum of 1 gallon. The landscape plan shall comply with the City's Water Efficient Landscape Standards (WELS). A WELS checklist shall be submitted with the final landscape plan. (Planning) Property Maintenance: Before and during construction, the site shall be kept flee of weeds, trash and litter.(Planning) o Underground Utilities: Underground utilities to be provided as required by Section 20.36.150 of the Campbell Municipal Code. (Public Works) Utili_ty Boxes and Back-Flow Preventers: Applicant to submit a plan to the Planning Department, prior to installation of PG&E transformer boxes and San Jose Water Company back-flow prevention devises, indicating the location of the boxes and screening (if boxes are above ground) for approval of the CDD. (Planning) o Signing Program: Applicant to submit a signage program plan for approval of the Community Development Director for the project site, prior to the installation of any signage. Signing program to provide details and criteria for all exterior project signage and to include the following: A. Off-site directional signage for the project at the project entry at McGlincey Lane. B. Building/tenant identification signage. All signage to comply with Chapter 21.53 of the Campbell Municipal Code. City Council Resolution No. 9308 S 97-05 - 535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 3 Standard Street Improvements: Prior to approval of the final map or issuance of any building permits for the site, the applicant shall prepare plans, pay fees, post securities and provide insurance as required to obtain an encroachment permit to construct public street improvements as required by the City Engineer. Public street improvement plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer licensed in the State of Califomia and shall include but not be limited to the following unless otherwise directed by the City Engineer: Construction of the 45-foot public street access to McGlincey Lane to include: 30- foot of asphalt concrete roadway; a standard marginal 5-foot sidewalk and a 5-foot landscaping strip along the west side of the street; a 5-foot landscaping strip along the east side of the street; no parking signs, signing and striping, standard curb and gutter, storm drainage facilities and street lighting facilities along both sides of the street; construction of driveways as required for existing parcels; and all conforms necessary to accommodate the existing improvements on the parcels south of the proposed development. Grading and Drainage Plan: Prior to approval of the final map or issuance of any building permits for the site, the applicant shall conduct hydrology studies as necessary, prepare grading and drainage plans and pay fees required to obtain necessary grading permits for the site. Grading plans shall include the procedure to be followed for abandonment of existing utility lines. Hydrology studies, grading and storm drainage plans shall include the public access road from McGlincey to the site. Storm drainage plans shall include existing invert and top of pipe elevations of the SCVWD culvert crossing the proposed roadway. Hydrology studies and storm drainage design shall include the drainage area bounded by Highway 17 to the west, Curtner Avenue to the south, the City limits to the east and the existing storm drain in McGlincey Lane easterly of the development to the north. The storm drainage plans for this drainage area shall include removal, replacement and/or installation of new storm lines as needed in McGlincey and Cristich Lanes to connect to a new and/or upsized storm drainage line required through the development, through the Paseo de Palomas private road and ultimately connecting to the existing storm drainage facilities in Union Avenue. Completion of this design is required to determine the appropriate size, location and invert elevations of the storm drainage facilities to be constructed on site that will allow for the future construction of the off-site storm drainage improvements in McGlincey Lane and Cristich Lane. The applicant shall be required to construct only the portions of this storm drainage facility that are on-site and the connection to the existing system in Union Avenue through the Pasco de Palomas private road. The applicant shall provide a "stub-out" to City Council Resolution No. 9308 S 97-05- 535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 4 Cristich Lane to allow for the future storm drain construction off-site. Completion of Public Street Improvements: Prior to issuance of occupancy for the site, all public street improvements as required by the encroachment permit must be completed and accepted by the City Engineer and the applicant must provide the one-year maintenance security. Landscaping Maintenance Agreements: Prior to recordation of the final map, the applicant shall prepare and execute a landscape maintenance agreement requiring the developer to post securities and maintain all landscaping, irrigation and irrigation facilities, walls and fences within all public areas, including the public access street to McGlincey Lane and the new public access road adjacent to the property. This agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to being executed by both parties and recorded by the City. 10. Title Report: Provide a current Preliminary Title Report. 11. Coordination with Capital Improvement/Other Projects: Applicant shall coordinate with other city improvement projects within the vicinity. Location and installation of off-site improvements that may be required by other districts and utility companies shall be approved by the City. 12. Street Improvement Agreement: Prior to the approval of the final map, the applicant shall execute a street improvement agreement and post securities to guarantee the installation of the required street improvements. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of November vote: , 1997, by the following roll call AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: Watson, Furtado, Conant COUNCILMEMBERS: Dougherty, Dean COUNCILMEMBERS: None COUNCILMEMBERS: None , Barbara D. Conant, Mayor ATTEST. ~c,e~ ~ ATnne Bybee, City Clerk ~'HE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT I$ A AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ON FILE IN THIS OFF~CE. )F.'8'1': ANNE BYBEE, CITY OLERK~ Item: City Date: Council Report Public Hearing November 18, 1997 Application of Ken Neumeister, on behalf of WTA Development and Huettig & Schromm, Inc., for approval of the following applications for property located at 535 Westchester Drive in a P-D (Planned Development)District and 571 McGlincey Lane in an M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District: A. General Plan Amendment (GP 96-02) to consider a change in the Land Use Element of the General Plan from Destination Commercial to Industrial for approximately 19.58 acres and to Public/Semi Public for 4 acres. B. A Planned Development Permit (PD 96-06) to allow the construction of a 280,000 square foot research and development business park on 19.58 acres and the designation of 4 acres as public open space. C. A Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (TS 97-01) to allow the creation of four lots and a remainder lot designated for public open space. D. A Site and Architectural Approval (S 97-05) to allow the construction of two off-premise signs and landscaping at the McGlincey Lane entrance to the site. E. Certification of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR 1996) and the Addendum and making a statement of Overriding Considerations. pLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION That the City Council take the following actions: Adopt a Resolution ~ the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR 1996) and the Addendum for the revised project, evaluating the designation of 19.58 acres for development of a 280,000 square foot Research & Development Park and a 4 acre public open space component and ~ a statement of overriding considerations; and Introduce an Ordinance for first reading 3.P_P_I?~LV_IJ:I.Q the General Plan Amendment (GP 96-02) changing the land use designation of 19.58 acres from Destination Commercial to Industrial and 4 acres from Destination Commercial to Public/Semi-Public, incorporating a map amendment and text changes in the Development Policies as provided in Exhibit "A"(note that this recommendation incorporates a four acre open space component); and Introduce an Ordinance for first reading, inco~orating the attached findings, APPROVING a Planned Development Permit (PD 96-06) allowing the construction of a 280,000 square foot research and development business park and designation of a public open space area of 4.0 acres, subject to the conditions of approval; and Application of Ken Ne November 18, 1997 Page 2 ,eister, on behalf of WTA Developme~. Adopt a Resolution, incorporating the attached findings, ~ a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (TS 97-01), subject to the conditions of approval; and. Adopt a Resolution, incorporating the attached findings, g~P_,P_,l?~.Y. IJ2~ a Site and Architectural Approval (S 97-05), which affects the entrance driveway area, subject to the attached conditions. BACKGROUND On June 17, 1997, the City Council considered the Planning Commission's recommendation to incorporate a four acre park as a part of the redevelopment of the Winchester Drive In site. The City Council took action to refer this application back to the Planning Commission by taking the following actions: 1. Directed staff to work with the developer to redesign the project to accommodate a four acre public open space adjacent to the percolation ponds; 2. Directed the Planning Commission to hold a Public Heating to consider the revised application with a Public/Semi-Public designation on a 4 acre portion of the site to accommodate an open space component; 3. Directed Redevelopment staff to analyze the effects of this action on terms and conditions of the Disposition and Development Agreement; and 4. Continued the consideration of the General Plan Amendment, Planned Development Permit, Vesting Subdivision Map, Site and Architectural Approval, and SEIR certification to a date uncertain pending the Planning Commission's reconsideration of the revised application. Revised Plan The developer has submitted a revised plan which illustrates a four (4) acre crescent shaped area on the southerly portion of the project site adjacent to the percolation ponds to be designated public open space and a reduction in the proposed building square footage from 330,000 to 280,000 square feet for the research and development portion of the project on 19.58 acres. The revised plan indicates the deletion of one of the proposed buildings (50,000 square feet) and a revised design for Building D, one of the interior buildings on the site. Landscaping and entry improvements are similar to those previously presented to the City Council, except that a four (4) acre public open space component has been included in the revised project. At its meeting of October 28, 1997, the Planning Commission considered a revised project which incorporated a four acre open space component. A discussion of the revised project and the Planning Commission's actions follow. Application of Ken Nt .aeister, on behalf of WTA Developme~_ November 18, 1997 Page 3 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW At its meeting of April 30, 1997, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3088 recommending to the City Council certification of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR 1996) for the original proposal of a 330,000 square foot research and development business park. The revised project being proposed is a less intensive use with a reduction of 50,000 square feet in building area and the addition of a four (4) acre public open space area. Pursuant to Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, an Addendum, which was provided under separate cover, was prepared to address the changes between the original project and the revised project. There are no new or more severe potential environmental effects as a result of the revised project. There have been no substantial changes in circumstances, or new information made available that is relevant to the revised project which lead to new or more severe effects. Additionally, there are no new, different or newly feasible mitigation measures that have been identified which are applicable to the revised project. The Commission adopted Resolution No. 3128 re-affirming its recommendation to certify the Supplemental EIR (SEIR 1996) addressing the potential environmental effects of the project and identifying and recommending mitigation measures, and to certify that the Addendum prepared to address the changes in the revised project description is adequate and complete, and recommending a statement of overriding considerations. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT Industrial Designation The applicant requests approval of a General Plan Amendment from Destination Commercial to Industrial for approximately 19.5 acres of the northerly portion of the project site. This land use change is unchanged from the previous request before the City Council, except that the industrial site area has been reduced, as previously described. ?lJl~lic/Semi Public Designation The proposed 4 acre open space component is located on the southerly portion of the site and is separated from the proposed research and development park by a new public street. This location has the advantage of being detached from the mobile home park and closer to the main entrance in terms of accessing the park from the Union Avenue neighborhood. Additionally, the location adjacent to the groundwater recharge ponds may allow expansion of park facilities around the ponds in the future. The specific improvements and development of the open space portion of the project site will be decided at a furore date with the review and participation of the surrounding neighborhood and the community. Application of Ken Nt November 18, 1997 Page 4 aeister, on behalf of WTA Developme~ The attached land use diagram accompanying the General Plan Ordinance illustrates a 4.0 acre open space area on the project site adjacent to the Santa Clara Valley Water District Groundwater Recharge Ponds and an industrial land use for the remaining portion of the project site. Staff has re-noticed this application to accommodate the Public/Semi Public use of the site not originally proposed with the previous submittal. Staff additionally has prepared revised development policies for this site reflecting the proposed uses. These policies are attached to the ordinance supporting the General Plan Amendment. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3129 recommending approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment. DEVELOPMENT AND DISPOSITION AGREEMENT Subsequent to this public hearing, the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency Board will be considering the First Amended and Restated Disposition and Development Agreement to sell 19.58 acres to the applicant for the proposed project. In recommending approval of the proposed project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3129 making the appropriate findings pursuant to Government Code Section 65402, that the sale of the 19.58 acres, if developed in accordance with the approvals recommended by the Planning Commission, will be consistent with the General Plan. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT Building Design; The proposed building elevations depict a contemporary building style with a general building height of approximately 34 feet for two story buildings and 21 feet for the single story building. Each building is provided a main building entrance feature oriented towards the private street. Building materials include a textured concrete panel for walls and tinted and reflective glass for glazing systems. All of the buildings utilize a similar materials palette, however, each building is provided an individual design, with an overall project theme being carded out through the use of consistent materials and landscaping. Parkine The site plan indicates the provision of 1070 parking spaces for the proposed project or a parking ratio of 1:261. This represents a reduction of 201 parking spaces from the original proposal. The parking ordinance requires the provision of 1120 parking spaces or a parking ratio of 1:250. The Planning Commission has authority to adjust parking requirements when it finds that specific circumstances of a project warrant such an adjustment. The Planning Commission has recommended a reduction in the proposed parking from 1070 to 1000 parking spaces or a parking ratio of 1:280 to allow an increase in the amount of landscaping. This condition is reflected in the recommended conditions of Application of Ken Neu,~eister, on behalf of WTA Developmen, November 18, 1997 Page 5 approval. The applicant wishes to maintain the 1070 spaces as proposed and has expressed reasons for maintaining the proposed parking ratio in attachment 13 of the report. The site plan indicates that approximately 30 percent of the research and development portion of the site will be landscaped. This represents an increase fi.om the 27 percent of the site previously proposed. The minimum requirement for landscaping in C-M (Controlled Manufacturing) Zoning District is 10 percent. On-site walkway areas in the project site are typically included in the calculation of the percentage of landscaping and were so calculated in the presented plan. The Planning Commission recommends that 30 percent of the research and development portion of the site be provided and dedicated to landscaping, exclusive of the walkways. The applicant has indicated that this requirement would create a hardship requiring a reduction in either parking or building square footage. (see attachment No. 13 letter from applicant) The project site, including the 4 acre public open space area, represents a landscaping coverage of approximately 43 percent of the project area, equal to approximately 9.28 acres (not including the public street). Trees Approximately 44 trees on the interior of the project site are proposed to be removed. A tree retention and removal plan is found on Sheet L-4. The applicant has indicated the replacement of these trees with eighty-eight 24-inch box trees throughout the project. This tree replacement is consistent with the Water Efficient Landscape Standards(W-ELS) guidelines adopted by the City. The Planning Commission has recommended that 44 of the replacement trees be a 36- inch box size and that the remaining trees be fifty percent 24-inch box and fifty percent 15 gallon size. The applicant is in agreement with this recommendation. Planning Commission Action At its meeting of October 28, 1997, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3131 recommending approval of the Planned Development Permit. The recommended conditions of approval incorporate the following requested changes: · A reduction in the number of parking spaces fi.om 1070 to 1000. · Provision of additional landscaping islands and an increase in the percentage of landscaping to 30 percent, excluding walkway areas. · Provision of an easement for future bicycle/pedestrian bridge access across Highway 17 to the Los Gatos creek Trail. · Provision of weekend access to parking facilities for the Public using the Park Application of Ken Ne..aeister, on behalf of WTA Developmet.. November 18, 1997 Page 6 · An increase in the size of proposed trees. The applicant has prepared a letter in response to the Planning Cornmission's recommendation (attachment No. 13) which indicates that the applicant is not supportive of the first four changes recommended above. VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP The applicant is requesting approval of a vesting tentative map to allow the division of the project site into four parcels to accommodate each of the proposed buildings and a remainder parcel for the 4 acre open space component. Each of the proposed industrial lots will share access from the proposed private street and will share ingress and egress easements as well as maintenance agreement through the development of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions(CC and R's). The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3132 recommending approval of the Vesting Tentative Map. The Planning Commission added a condition that an easement be provided for a future pedestrian/bicycle bridge to connect this site to the Los Gatos Creek Trail over Highway 17. Staff drafted the condition to require a recorded covenant obligating the applicant to provide an easement to connect the new public street to a future pedestrian overpass, when and if the City is able to proceed with a pedestrian overpass project. The applicant is objecting to this condition. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAl. The applicant is proposing the construction of a new public street to access McGlincey Lane. The gateway entrance features at McGlincey Lane presents two low screen walls with signage identifying the project and landscaping treatment. These parcels are not contiguous to the project site and consequently the signage represents an off-premise sign which must be considered by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3130 recommending that the City Council approve the Site and Architectural Application(S 97-05), subject to a condition that a separate sign application be submitted for approval of all project signage. FISCAL IMPACT The Redevelopment Agency has entered into a Development and Disposition Agreement(DDA) which provides for the sale and development of the northerly project site for research and development purposes, conditioned on the City's granting of the necessary land use approval. ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve the pro_ieet, sub_ieet to the conditions of approval, without the condition.q recommended by the Planning Commission at its meeting of October 28. 1997: (deleting conditions: 2A(3), 2A(4), 62, and 63) Application of Ken Nt November 18, 1997 Page 7 ~eister, on behalf of WTA Developme~. 2. Deny the applications as submitted by the applicant; Continue the application: If the City Council finds that additional information is necessary from the applicant, the City Council may continue this application so that additional information or modifications to the proposal may be presented. ATTACHMENTS City. Council Action8 1. Draft City Council Resolution for SEIR 1996/Addendum A. Analysis of Environmental Impacts B. Statement of Overriding Considerations 2. Draft ordinance for General Plan Amendment (GP 96-02) with Proposed Development Policies and Map Amendment. 3. Draft Ordinance for Planned Development Permit (I'D 96-06) with conditions of approval. 4. Draft City Council Resolution for Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (TS 97-01) with conditions of approval. 5. Draft City Council Resolution for Site and Architectural Application (S 97-05). Planning Commission Actions 7. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3128(Recommending SEIR 1996 and Addendum certification) 8. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3129 (Recommending amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan from Commercial to Industrial and Public/Semi- Public) Planning Commission Resolution No. 3131 (Recommending approval of a Planned Development Permit) 10. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3132 (Recommending approval of a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map) 11. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3130 (Recommending approval of Site and Architectural Application) 12. Transmittal of November 5, 1997(Items provided under separate cover) · Addendum to Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (October 1997). · Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (December 1996). · Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (October 1996). · Environmental Impact Report (1991). · Reduced Plan Set, Site Plan/Elevations October 1997. · Staff Report from the October 28, and April 22, 1997 Planning Commission Meetings. · Draft Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of October 28,1997. · Planning Commission Minutes from April 22, April 30, May 13, and May 27, 1997. · City Council Minutes of May 20, June 3, and June 17, 1997. Application of Ken Ne November 18, 1997 Page 8 .,eister, on behalf of WTA Development. · A copy of the First Amended and Restated Development and Disposition Agreement (DDA). Correspondence 13. Applicant's letter responding to Commission's recommendation. Approved by: ~-~ [ ~ ' ~eve Pl-~'~e~ki, ~ommunity Development Direct~ Reviewed b~z~. ~,~.,/'~-a~,,~ f,~. f~~ ~ ~ / Gretchen Co~e~ ~e'Di~ctor Approved by: Bernard M. Strojny, City Manager RESOLUTION NO. 3128 BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THE CERTIFICATION OF A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SEIR- 1996) AND ADDENDUM MAKING FINDINGS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) AND RECOMMENDING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS IN COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA IN THE CONSIDERATION OF A PROJECT TO REDEVELOP THE FORMER WINCHESTER DRIVE-IN SITE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 535 WESTCHESTER DRIVE AND 571 MCGLINCEY LANE: WHEREAS, the following recitals summarize information more fully set forth in the attached Exhibit A, which is incorporated in this Resolution by this reference. Various capitalized terms used in this Resolution are more fully defined in Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, in June 1992 the City Council certified an environmental impact report (the "1992 EIR") that evaluated the environmental impacts of development of a proposed destination retail center on the former Winchester Drive-In site (the "Property"); and WHEREAS, in April 1994 the Agency acquired the Property and thereafter conducted land use and economic feasibility studies and a developer selection process, from which WTA Development (the "Developer") was selected to negotiate a disposition and development agreement (the "DDA") for development of the Property; and WHEREAS, the Developer proposed development on the Property of an approximately 330,000 square foot research and development and light industrial business park with related on-site and off-site improvements (the "Original Project"); and WHEREAS, because the Original Project contained land uses that vary from the land uses evaluated in the 1992 EIR, the City caused preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (the "1996 SEIR") in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the local CEQA Implementing Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the 1996 SEIR builds upon and incorporates analysis from the 1992 EIR that was certified by the City Council and that remains valid, while providing new analysis of environmental impacts that will be different as a result of the change in land use proposed for the Original Project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Original Project on April 22, April 30, May 13, and May 27, 1997 recommending to the City Council certification of the 1996 SEIR and recommending findings for a statement of overriding considerations; and WHEREAS, on June 17, 1997 at a public hearing of the City Council to consider the Planning Commission's recommendation, and after receiving public testimony the City Council requested Planning Commission Re~olution No. 3128 535 Westchester/571 McGlincey Lane Page 2 that the Developer present a redesign of the Original Project to allow incorporation of a four acre public open space on the Property; and WHEREAS, the Developer has submitted a revised application proposing a 280,000 square foot research and development business park on 19.58 acres with the Agency retaining four acres for public open space (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, the Agency has prepared an Addendum pursuant to Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines to address the changes proposed between the Project and the Original Project and the Planning Commission finds that the Addendum is the appropriate environmental document to address the changes between the Project and the Original Project in that the project: 1) will not result in substantial changes which will require major revisions of the 1992 EIR or 1996 SEIR due to the involvement of new environmental effects or a substantial increase in severity of the previously identified significant effects; 2) has no substantial changes proposed under the Project which will require major revisions of the previous 1996 SEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 3) will not have any new significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR and significant effects previously examined will be generally less, but in no case more severe than shown in the 1992 EIR and 1996 SEIR; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission further finds that the one significant effect previously examined (Air Quality) will actually be less severe under the Project due to less traffic generation but still remains a significant impact under CEQA; and WHEREAS, the 1996 SEIR and the Addendum have been prepared to serve as the CEQA document for Planning Commission and City Council in consideration of the Planning Approvals for the Project; and WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency serves as the "lead agency" and the City serves as a "responsible agency" under CEQA in the preparation and certification of the 1996 SEIR and Addendum; and WHEREAS, through this resolution, the Planning Commission desires to comply with the State CEQA, and the Local CEQA Implementing Guidelines in the consideration, certification, and use of the 1996 SEIR and Addendum in connection with their consideration of the Planning Approvals. RESOLVED that the Planning Commission finds that the above recitals and the information contained in Exhibit A are accurate. FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council find and certify that the 1996 SEIR and Addendum have been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the Local CEQA Implementing Guidelines; that in light of the 1992 EIR, the 1996 SEIR and Addendum adequately addresses the environmental Planning Commission Rt~otution No. 3128 535 Westchester/571 McGlincey Lane Page 3 issues of the Project; and that the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the 1996 SEIR and Addendum, in light of the 1992 EIR, prior to acting on the Project and the discretionary approvals necessary for the development of the Project. FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that the 1996 SEIR and Addendum reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby identifies the significant effects, recommends making a statement of overriding considerations, recommends the mitigation measures, recommends the monitoring program to be implemented for such mitigation measures, and makes the findings set forth in detail in the attached Exhibit A. The statements, findings, and determinations set forth in Exhibit A are based on the previously certified 1992 EIR and 1996 SEIR, the Addendum and other information available to the Planning Commission, and are made in compliance with Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines and Section 21081 (a) of CEQA. RECOMMENDATIONS OF PLANNING COMMISSION: Passed and adopted this 28th day of October, 1997 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Gibbons, Keams, Lowe, Meyer-Kennedy COMMISSIONERS: Jones COMMISSIONERS: Lindstrom COMMISSIONERS: None APPROVED: Susan A. Keams, Chair ATTEST: Steven Piasecki, Secretary j:Seir96 EXHIBIT A ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, RECOMMENDATION OF MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING PROGRAM, AND FINDING OF FACTS FOR THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT OF THE WINCHESTER DRIVE-IN SITE AND THE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ADDENDUM PREPARED IN CONNECTION THEREWITH I. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Project Descriotion. On January 7, 1997 the City Council/Agency certified the SEIR and authorized execution of the Original DDA. The original proposal examined by the 1996 SEIR consisted of a 330,000 square foot research and development/light industrial business park on 23.58 acres (the "Original Project"). On June 17, 1997 the City Council, upon recommendation of the Planning Commission requested WTA Campbell Technology Park (the "Developer") to present redesign of the Original Project to accommodate a four acre park or open space. The revised project (the "Project") under consideration by the City Council is the proposed sale and land use change of 19.58 acres from "Commercial" to "Industrial" for the development of an approximately 280,000 square foot research and development business park, and the proposed land use designation change of four acres from "Commercial" to "Public/Semi-Public" for use as public open space on the former Winchester Drive-In Site (the "Property") within the Central Campbell Redevelopment Project Area (the "Project Area") in the City of Campbell, California (the "City"). The Revised Project building square footage will consist of three, two story buildings ranging in size from 60,000 square feet to 100,000 square feet, and a 40,000 square foot single story building. The proposed site plan of the Project is contained in the Addendum to the 1996 SEIR. As a result in the change in project description, the Agency and the Developer have agreed to a First Amended and Restated Disposition and Development Agreement (the "DDA") for the purpose of reducing the size of the Property to be acquired from 23.58 acres to 19.58 acres (the "Site") to accommodate a fou~ acre public open space, to provide a more detailed description of the improvements to be developed on the Site, to make related adjustments to the purchase price, and to address specific circumstances that have changed since execution of the Original DDA; As was the case under the Original Project, the Project will require removal of the deteriorated asphalt paving currently on the Property, and site preparation activities such as minor excavation, grading, and possible importation of engineered fill. Off- site improvements will include extension of water and utilities to the Property, -1- lO~O~.P~O 12Bo/96 lO3OQ6.P~O traffic mitigation improvements to affected intersections in the area, ~.cess street improvements and the extension of storm drain facilities across the Property. Back_m'ound; The 1992 EIR. The Property has been vacant for the past 15 years, and has been under various ownerships. In 1984, Caz Development was approved to construct a 420,000 square foot light industrial project. However the project was never built. In 1991, Western Federal Savings (then the owner of the Property) submitted a Planned Development permit application (PD91- 04) to the City to construct a 245,000 square foot destination retail center on the Property. At the same time, the Agency initiated an amendment to the Central Campbell Redevelopment Plan to allow for the addition of the McGlincey Lane Expansion Area, within which the Property is located, to the Project Area. The PD permit application for the Property and the redevelopment area expansion were evaluated together under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., "CEQA") in an EIR during 1991-92 (SCH#91053013) (the "1992 EIR"). The 1992 EIR consists of a Draft EIR dated September 1991 (SCH#91053013) (the "1992 Draft EIR"), a Final EIR dated March 1992 (containing responses to comments received on the Draft EIR) (the "1992 Final EIR"), and Exhibit A to the 1992 Resolution (described below) (containing certain text additions to the foregoing documents). The 1992 EIR evaluated the then-proposed destination retail development of the Property at a project level of detail and evaluated the other projects proposed to be undertaken in the McGlincey Lane Expansion Area at a program level of detail. The 1992 EIR was certified by the City Council and Agency in a concurrent resolution on June 2, 1992 (Resolution Nos. 8322 ,nd 1992-19, respectively) (the "1992 Resolution"). Findings were contained in the 1992 Resolution in accordance with CEQA, including a Statement of Overriding Considerations for impacts pertaining to regional air quality. The destination retail project for the Property evaluated in the 1992 EIR was not developed. The Agency purchased the Property in April 1994. Shortly thereafter, the Agency began a process to determine the optimum land use for the Property. In June 1994, a series of public meetings were held to receive early input into the decision making process. From those meetings a variety of ideas for the Property were obtained, including light industrial, commercial recreation, non-profit recreation, and other uses. These potential uses were then evaluated by an economic consulting fh-m, Economics Research Associates, to determin,~ the financial feasibility of these uses. In August 1995, the Agency distributed a Request for Proposals (RFP) package to developers, corporations, or other parties that might be interested in purchasing and developing all or a portion of the Property. The Agency received eight proposals from developers. -2- After evaluation of the proposals, the Agency entered into an exclusive negotiating rights agreement with the Developer. In December 1996, Agency staff concluded negotiations with Developer on the proposed terms of a disposition and development agreement (a "DDA") which was presented for consideration by the Agency and City Council at a duly noticed public hearing on January 7, 1997. The 1996 SEIR and Addendum. The Original Project as proposed by the Developer differed in land use from the destination retail project that was proposed and evaluated in the 1992 EIR in terms of impacts related to traffic/circulation/parking, noise, air quality following buildout, land use, water supply, storm drainage, aesthetics, and alternatives. However, much of the information and analysis contained in the 1992 EIR remained valid for the Original Project and remains valid for the Project, particularly with regard to impacts involving air quality during construction, hazardous materials, cultural resources, geology, drainage/flooding, biological resources, cumulative impacts, and growth inducing impacts. Under these circumstances, the City Council determined that a Supplemental EIR (the "1996 SEIR") was required, in accordance with Section 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines (defined below), to build upon the relevant aspects of the 1992 EIR and address the different potential environmental impacts that may result from the change in the nature of the Original Project compared to the project that was evaluated in the 1992 EIR. The determination to prepare the 1996 SEIR was also consistent with the requirements of the 1992 Resolution calling for performance of further appropriate environmental analysis when a specific project proposal for the Property was presented for Planning Commission and City Council consideration. The 1997 Addendum to the 1996 SEIR was prepared to address the changes between the Original Project and the Project. Thechanges do not lead to new, more severe potential environmental effects in that there is a reduction of 50,000 square feet in industrial building area being replaced with a four acre public open space area. There have been no substantial changes in circumstances, or new information made available relevant to the Project which lead to new, more severe environmental effects. No new, different or newly feasible mitigation measures have been identified which are applicable to the Project. The 1996 SEIR incorporates by reference the 1992 EIR. The 1996 SEIR consists of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report dated October 1996 (SCHg96082018) (the "Draft 1996 SEIR") and a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report dated December 1996 (the *Final 1996 SEIR") (containing responses to comments on, and making certain revisions to, the Draft 1996 SEIR), as more fully described below. 103OQ6.PSO 12/3o/96 -3- lO~OO~.P~o 12~o/~ The 1996 SEIR was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA'), the State CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et ~eq., with particular reference to Section 15163), and the City's and Agency's Local CEQA Implementation Guidelines. CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines authorize preparation of a supplement to an EIR when certain conditions are present, and when limited additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation. A supplement to an EIR must be given the same kind of notice and review as is given to an initial EIR. To that end, the Agency issued a Notice of Preparation ("NOP') for the Draft 1996 SEIR to the State Clearinghouse and others on August 7, 1996. The required 30-daY notice period for the NOP ended on September 6, 1996. In addition, the Agency/City conducted a public scoping meeting for the Project on July 24, 1996. The Draft 1996 SEIR was circulated from October 2 to November 16, 1996 to various Federal, State, and local agencies for their review and comment. The Draft 1996 SEIR was also provided to the Campbell Library, and was made available to members of the general public. A public meeting on the Draft 1996 SEIR was held on October 29, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. at the Campbell City Hall Council Chambers. Approximately 10 members of the public were in attendance at the workshop. The Final 1996 SEIR was made available to the public and distributed to the public agencies that commented on the Draft 1996 SEIR on December 18, 1996. The Final 1996 SEIR contains responses to 12 letters received during the Draft 1996 SEIR comment period and to comments made at the October 29, 1996 public workshop on the Draft 1996 SEIR. The Final 1996 SEIR also contains text revisions to the Draft 1996 SEIR made a result of responding to the comments received. The 1996 SEIR (with the 1992 EIR as a reference) came before the Agency and the City Council on January 7, 1997 at a duly noticed joint public hearing, at which time the Agency and City Council heard oral testimony and received written communications. The City Council and Agency acting jointly certified the 1996 SEIR as complete and adequate. The 1997 Addendum has been prepared in compliance with Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines to address the changes from the Original Project to the Project together with any relevant changes in circumstances, new information or -4- potential new mitigation measures. While CEQA does not require a public review period for an Addendum, public notice of its availability for public review was provided beginning October 17, 1997, ten days before the Planning Commission public hearing to consider the Project, and 30 days prior to the City Council public hearing to consider the Project. Use of 1996 SEIR and Addendum; Imposition of Mitigation Measures. Two primary sets of local discretionary approvals are required before the Project may be developed. The Planning Approvals constitute the first set of local discretionary approvals necessary to develop the Project. The Planning Approvals include a proposed General Plan amendment, a Planned Development Permit, approval of a vesting tentative map, and Site and Architectural approval. The Planning Commission conSidered the Project at a duly noticed public hearing on October 28, 199'/and recommended certification of the 1996 SEIR and the Addendum as adequate and complete in serving as the CEQA document for the Project and recommended to the City Council making the statement of overriding considerations. The second set of approvals consists of approval by the Agency, and consent by the City Council (with specified findings under the Community Redevelopment Law), of the DDA. The DDA sets forth the terms and conditions under which the Agency will sell the property'to the Developer. A primary condition to the sale of the property is that the Developer must first obtain the Planning Approvals. Both the Planning Approvals and approval of the DDA is scheduled for consideration at duly noticed public hearings on November 18, 199'/. In Section IV of Exhibit A of Concurrent Resolution 199'/-1 and 9181, the City Council and Agency adopted specified mitigation measures to address potentially significant environmental impacts of the Original Project that still apply to the Project. Those mitigation measures are reaffirmed by this resolution and incorporated herein. No new or newly feasible mitigation measures have been identified by the Addendum or the Commission. In particular, no new or newly feasible mitigation measures have been identified with respect to carbon monoxide emissions, the one unavoidable potentially significant environmental impact of the project. If the City Council approves the Planning Approvals in their policy discretion, these adopted mitigation measures will be imposed through conditions of the Planning Approvals. Imposition of EIR mitigation measures through conditions of land use approval is the standard procedure in Campbell, and most localities, for imposing mitigation measures related to specific projects. lO3OQ6.PSO 12./3o/96 -5- Nothing in this Exhibit A or the Resolution to which it is attached will affect the City Council's discretion, as applicable, in taking action on the Planning Approvals, or in imposing conditions of approval in addition to the mitigation measures adopted below. II. OVERALL FINDINGS Before the Agency and City Council may act upon the discretionary approvals described in Section I.D above, CEQA mandates that the Agency and City Council consider the record and make certain f'mdings required by Public Resources Code Sections 21081 and 21081(a) and Sections 15091, 15092 and 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The 1996 SEIR (which incorporates the 1992 EIR) and as amended by the 1997 Addendum, identifies potentially significant impacts on the environment which are likely to result from development of the Project. Based on the following findings as to each such impact, the 1996 SEIR concludes that changes or alterations have been adopted and will be incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen all identified potentially significant environmental impacts except for the local air quality impact identified in Section IH. and in Section IV below. Further, as required by Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, a monitoring program is adopted for the mitigation measures stated in and required by this Exhibit A. The purposes of the findings contained in Exhibits A and B -include: (1) certifying the 1996 SEIR including the 1997 Addendum prepared for the discretionary approvals described in Section I.D above; (2) briefly describing and summarizing the potentially significant environmental impacts of the Project; (3) describing mitigation measures for, and alternatives to, the Project; (4) making a statement of overriding considerations for the one unavoidable, unmitigated impact and (5) presenting the Agency's and the City's f'mdings as to the impacts of the Project after adoption or rejection of the mitigation measures and alternatives. In addition, Section IV of Exhibit A to the Concurrent Resolution of the City Council and the Agency, Resolution Nos. 9181 and 1997-1 respectively adopts mitigation measures for certain other environmental impacts that were addressed in the 1996 SEIR (including the 1992 EIR incorporated by reference), but determined not to be potentially significant adverse environmental impacts. The description of impacts contained in this Exhibit A is intended as a summary only. The 1996 SEIR, the documents which it incorporates (including the 1992 EIR) and the 1997 Addendum, describe these impacts in detail. The City Council and Agency certify that the 1996 SEIR with the 1997 Addendum has been completed in compliance with CEQA and .that it was presented to, and reviewed and considered by, the Planning Commission prior to acting on the discretionary approvals related to the Project~ In so certifying, the City Council and Agency recognizes that there may be Mdifferences" among and between the information and -6- lO3OQ6.P$O 12~0/96 opinions offered in the documents and testimony that make up the record related to the City Council and Agency actions. Therefore, by these findings (including Exhibit A of Resolutions Nos. 9181 and 1997-1 by reference), the City Council and Agency acknowledge and certify the clarifications and/or modifications of the 1996 SEIR, the 1997 Addendum, as set forth in these findings, and determines that these findings shall control and that the 1996 SEIR shall be deemed to be adequate subject to the determinations reached by the City Council and Agency in these findings, which are based on the substantial evidence in the record. IH. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT On January 7, 1997 the City Council and Agency adopted Resolution Nos. 9181 and 1997-1 (the "Prior Findings") certifying the 1996 SEIR as complete and adequate for the Original Project under the Original DDA. In compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) and Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Council and Agency in adopting the Prior Findings made the appropriate findings regarding potentially significant environmental impacts related to the Original Project as identified in the 1996 SEIR, including the potentially significant impacts identified in the 1992 EIR that have been found to remain relevant to the Original Project and the Project. The City Council and Agency reaffu'ms the analysis and findings made based on substantial evidence in the record including the 1992 EIR, 1996 SEIR and the Addendum because the Addendum identifies no new or more potentially significant environmental impacts, and no additional available mitigation measures, the Prior Findings and Mitigation Monitoring Program are hereby incorporated by reference. For each identified potentially significant impact, the Prior Findings: 1) summarizes the impact, 2) describes and adopts applicable mitigation measures for the impact, 3) adopts a monitoring program for the adopted mitigation measures in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, and 4) makes one of the findings required by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) and Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The City Council and Agency recognizes that in certain respects the Project contemplated under the DDA may have impacts less than those of the Original Project contemplated under the Original DDA as described in the Prior Findings. In particular, the Project will contain only 280,000 square feet of building space, not 330,000 square feet as noted in Section C.2.d of the Prior Findings. The Project will increase critical movement traffic volumes at the Camden/Union intersection less than the 1.35 percent as noted in Section A.2.a of the Prior Findings.' Nonetheless, despite any reduction in impacts, the Commission recommends implementation of all mitigation measures described in the Prior Findings, and therefore reaffu'ms the Prior Findings on these -7- io30Q6~p~0 12/3o/96 IVe V® lOlOQ6.1~o 12~o/96 points as well. UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Based on the analysis contained in the 1996 SEIR (including the 1992 EIR), with the Addendum and Section m of this Exhibit A, the following unavoidable significant adverse impact of approval and implementation of the Project is identified: The increase in concentrations of carbon monoxide at the Camden/Ortner and Union/Campbell intersections as a result of anticipated Project-related traffic would represent a significant unmitigated air quality impact because I-hour and &hour carbon monoxide exceedance would become worse under Project conditions. As to this significant environmental impact, the City Council and Agency finds that there are no feasible mitigation measures identified in the 1996 SEIR and Addendum that might reduce the level of significance of this impact, and specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the adoption of the only possible mitigation measure (as detailed in the Prior Findings) or the project alternatives (as detailed in Section V ). Therefore, in order to approve the Planning Approvals and the DDA as applicable, the approval resolution or other official approval action must contain the City Council's and/or the Agency's statement of overriding considerations (contained in Exhibit B) in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081 (b) and Section 15093 Co) of the State CEQA Guidelines. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT A. OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION CRITERIA Introduction. This Section V provides an in~oduction to and overview of the extensive evaluation of alternatives to the Project and reuse of the Property that has been performed by the Agency and City Council, in consultation with nearby property owners and the general Campbell community, over the past several years. This section evaluates four specific alternative uses for the Property in terms of environmental effects and ability to achieve redevelopment and other community objectives. The information and analysis is drawn from Section 5 of the 1992 Draft FIR, Section 4 of the Draft 1996 SEIR (as modified in the Final 1996 SEIR)including the 1997 Addendum, the ERA Alternatives Studys the Staff Reports on Alternatives, and other information known through deliberations and discussions on alternative uses for the Property. Overview of Process Since 1992 EIR. The 1992 EIR evaluated several alternatives for the Property in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines, including the No Project Alternative and several alternative land uses on the -8- 1030Q6.PS0 12/~0/96 Property. After the Agency purchased the Property in 1994, it conducted an extensive public process to determine the optimum land use for the Property. A variety of land use concepts for the Property were developed, and were formally evaluated in the ERA Alternatives Study (1995) and the Staff Reports on Alternatives (1996). The purpose of the ERA Alternatives Study, the Staff Repons on Alternatives, and the Agency's public input process was to help determine a land development strategy that balanced environmental considerations, Campbell's financial and non-financial objectives for the Property, and the ability to improve the McGlincey Lane area's infrastructure. Through a series of meetings and evaluations, four land use alternatives for the site were developed, taking into account and building upon the evaluation of land use alternatives set forth in the 1992 EIR. The predominant land uses in the four alternatives were: commercial recreation, industrial, residential, and public park. Because there was an interest in relocating the City's corporation yard to the Property, each alternative then had two sub-alternatives or variations, one with and one without the corporation yard. The land sale or land lease revenue potential of each alternative was analyzed, in addition to overall municipal cost and revenue implications. The cost analysis included roadway improvements, utilities upgrading, park development, park maintenance, and other General Fund service costs. The Agency's evaluation on how to proceed with the use of the Property also considered the compatibility of the use with the surrounding neighborhood, other environmental issues as outlined in the 1992 EIR, the desires of the community, and potentially creative proposals which developers would be able to bring into the process. After the ERA Alternatives Study was received and reviewed by the Agency Board, the Agency decided to issue an RFP to developers, corporations, and other parties that might be interested in purchasing and developing all or a portion of the Property. The RFP did not restrict the proposals to a certain land use or development type; rather, it identified the range of four land uses that had been evaluated in the ERA Alternatives Study and encouraged submittals for creative projects that could meet the City's and Agency's financial and non- financial objectives. The Agency received eight proposals from developers; four for commercial recreation, three for research and development/light industrial, and one for a private school. Upon extensive evaluation and public discussion, the Agency Board chose to negotiate with the Developer for the sale of the Property and -9- 1030Q6.PS0 12/30/96 development of thc Project because the Project appears to best meet the goals and objectives established for the Properly, taking into account relevant environmental impacts. 3. Redevelopment and Plannin_~ Objectives. In determining what land use alternatives were viable for the Property, several objectives were considered including the following (the *Redevelopment and Planning Objectives*): a) Land Use Comvatibilitv. The Agency evaluated what kind of land use would be compatible where the surrounding land use consisted of primarily industrial uses bordered by a freeway. This setting makes a residential reuse of the Property very problematic. Addifio~mlly, residents of the Paseo de Palomas Mobile Home Park immediately adjacent to the Property are particularly concerned with a recreational use that might include sports activities, such as a golf driving range or sports fields where noise would be a concern. Development of a research and development/light industrial business park on the Property is generally viewed as the most compatible land use. The site reserved for a public park or open space in the Project as more recently modified is at the far side of the Property from the mobile home park and will mirtimize any effect on the mobile homes. b) Redevelopment Goals and Objectives. The Redevelopment Plan identifies several goals for the McGlincey Lane area, including improvement of Cristich Lane to a public street, extending storm drain to address existing point and non-point source water pollution concerns, improving water supply to provide adequate fire flow and to address inadequate fire suppression conditions in the area, and to facilitate the development of the Property which has been a blight in the area for 15 years. Existing redevelopment funds and anticipated tax increment revenues are not adequate to finance these capital projects. The net proceeds generated by the sale of the Property and the development of the site itseff could help finance many of these improvements. Without such net sale proceeds, Agency tax increment revenue from the area is not likely to be sufficient to fund new redevelopment activities in the forseeable future. c) Financial Feasibility. The City loaned the Agency $3.34 million to acquire the Property on a short term basis to help facilitate its development. The Agency determined that, at a minimum, the sale of the Property should generate enough revenue to retire the Agency's debt to the City, net of any Agency costs and obligations associated with the development of the Property. Based on the -10- IO3OQ6.1~o 12/3o/96 d) commercial recreation projects proposed, none were determined to be f'mancially feasible under this standard, while the proposed research and development Project is estimated to provide a net return sufficient to fund certain public improvements including storm drain and a four acre public open space area of benefit to the McGlincey Lane area and yield additional funds in excess of $2 million after costs and expenses. Public O~n Spaces. In addition to the acquisition costs, developing and maintaining the entire Property as a public park would require an additional $5 to $7 million depending upon the extent of on-site improvements and required off-site improvements needed to develop adequate access and infrastructure to the Property. The focus of the Open Space Element of the General Plan is on creating more neighborhood parks; and in particular, the east side of Campbell is deficient of neighborhood park space. However, the Property is challenged in meeting many of the criteria established on page 8 of the Open Space Element of the General Plan for acquiring and developing open space. For example, the Property is not within walking distance to a significant number of Campbell neighborhoods, it is not particularly visible or accessible to Campbell residents due to lack of convenient pedestrian and vehicular access, and the frequency of commercial trucks and vehicles in the area does not provide a desirable condition for public open space and park land as defined by the Open Space Element.. Given the costs for development, a park occupying most of the 23.5S-acre Property does not appear to be financially feasible for a City which already supports a City-wide 30-acre recreational facility at the Community Center and John D. Morgan Park, a 25 acre public park. In addition, local youth sports groups such as the Campbell Little League, Bobby Sox, and Soccer Leagues have not expressed support, and other public agencies either did not express support or were not financially able to consider a partnership with Campbell for development of the site. In the Commission's April and May 1997 consideration of the Original Project, substantial community interest was expressed in setting aside some portion of the Property for public park or open space use. Based on the community interest, the Commission has determined to recommend a fOur-acre public open space. The response by the Commission to recommend a public open space component is at least partially to address the need of a four to six IO3OQ6,P~0 12/30/96 acre "neighborhood" size park while preserving the development of the balance of the site for an economically viable commercial project that addresses the Agency's redevelopment goals and objectives in the area. These Redevelopment and Planning Objectives have been distilled from the General Plan, the Redevelopment Plan, the 1992 Report to City Council, the Agency's Implementation Plan, hearings and commem on the Original Project, and other evidence in the record, and provide a basis for evaluating the ability of various alternatives to satisfy the Agency/City goals for redevelopmem of the Property. The 1996 SEIR Alternatives Analysis. Several of the land use alternatives for the Property evaluated in the 1992 EIR remain relevant and valid as alternatives to the Project for CEQA purposes. The analysis of these alternatives is incorporated by reference in the 1996 SEIR and is summarized in Section V.B below. Specifically, SecfionV.B. 1 evaluates the No Project Alternative, as required by CEQA. Section V.B.2 evaluates two land use alternatives for the Property that were initially considered in the 1992 EIR and that have been a focus of continuing consideration by the Agency over the past three years, as outlined above: a residential use, and a large public park use. The only uses of the Property that have received serious consideration in the ERA Alternatives Study and subsequent Agency deliberations, but that was not evaluated from an environmental alternatives perspective in the 1992 EIR are the commercial recreation use and a small public park or open space in conjunction with light industrial development, which has now become part of the project itself. Section V.B.3 below provides a summary of the environmental and other impacts of a commercial recreation use, based on the new discussion of that alternative contained in the 1996 SEIR. The 1992 EIR and the 1996 SEIR did not analyze any alternative location for the Project. Recent court cases suggest that CEQA may, where appropriate, require an analysis of alternative locations for a project, as well as alternative projects on the same site. CEQA requires that the alternatives be capable of obtaining the basic objectives of the proposed project (Section 15126(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines). For the following reasons, it has been concluded that there is no feasible alternative location for the Project. The Property is the only relatively large, currently undeveloped site in the City of Campbell or immediate environs that -12- could accommodate a high-end research and development park of the size and scope contemplated for the Project. Assembling a sufficiently large site to accommodate the Project at another location in Campbell or its environs would result in business and/or residential relocation, demolition, public infrastructure improvements, and conflicting land use in built-up neighborhoods that would cause more disruption and adverse environmental impact than would development of the Project on the vacant, relatively isolated Property. The costs of land assembly would be several times greater than the land cost of the Property, making development of the Project at another location in the general vicinity of the Property economically impractical for the Agency and any private developer. In short, an alternative location for the Project would be prohibitively costly to assemble and would cause more severe environmental impacts than locating the Project on the Property. Consequently, consistent with Section 15125(d)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, an alternative location for the Project is found to be infeasible and has not been evaluated further in the 1996 SEIR or this Exhibit A. Bo lO3OQ6.Pso 12/30/96 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES AND REASONS FOR RFJECTION Following is a summary of the proposed land use alternatives for the Property evaluated in the 1996 SEIR (including relevant alternatives from the 1992 EIR as incorporated by reference). The reasons for their selection as the most viable alternatives are addressed in SecfionV.A above. The likely environmental impacts of each alternative and each alternative's ability to meet the Redevelopment and Planning Objectives are briefly summarized and are compared to the environmental impacts and potential of the Project to meet the Redevelopment and Planning Objectives. Each alternative is rejected as being infeasible because it fails to meet one or more of the Redevelopment or Planning Objectives in a timely manner and/or would cause various adverse environmental or fiscal impacts that can be avoided through implementation of the Project. The reasons for rejection of the alternatives are summarized below and are supported by substantial evidence in the record. The No Project Alternative. The No Project Alternative me,an.~ that the Property would remain vacant (unless the Agency permitted reuse for one of the other alternatives analyzed separately below). Potentially significant adverse impacts of the Project related to traffic, noise, air quality, construction impacts, hazardous materials, seismic safety, mad cultural -2.3- i030Q6.P$O 17J30/96 resources would generally not occur under the No Project Alternative since such impacts are generally associated with the development process. The vacant site would be less aesthetically appealing to some observers then a well designed Project. On balance, the No Project Alternative would have the fewest adverse environmental effects and would be considered the environmentally superior alternative among those evaluated in the 1992 EIR and the 1996 SEIR. Most important, the No Project Alternative would prevent the reuse of the largest and one of the most blighted parcels in the Project Area, thereby frustrating an essential purpose of the Redevelopment Plan and the Agency's Implementation Plan. For these reasons, the No Project Alternative fundamentally fails to achieve the underlying Redevelopment and Planning Goals of the Agency and the City. On this basis, the fmding is made that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the No Project Alternative, and the No Project Alternative is hereby rejected even though it might prove to be an environmentally superior alternative. Alternative Land Uses on Property_ Evaluated in 1992 EIR fas Uudated in 1996). Several alternative land uses for the Property were considered in the 1992 EIR. Two of the alternatives - residential and larger public park - are relevant to the current consideration of alternatives to the Project because they reflect two of the four basic alternatives considered in the ERA Alternatives Study, the Staff Reports on Alternatives, and the Agency's recent deliberations on appropriate uses for the Property. Following is a brief summary of those two alternatives that builds upon the material in the 1992 EIR. Residential. Although the traffic generation rates are lower for residential uses on the Property than for commercial, office or industrial uses like the proposed Project, residential uses generate traffic in both the morning and evening peak periods. Residential uses also place a higher demand on City services and generate ]imlted City revenues. A residential use in the Property would not be compatible with the elevated noise levels generated from SR-17 traffic, and marketing a residential development on the site would be difficult, given its access through and proximity to the McGlincey Lane industrial area. In summary, a residential use of the Property might be marginally superior to the Project from a traffic and air quality perspective, but would cause greater land use conflict and noise impacts than the Project. b) Overall, it is difficult to judge if the residential alternative would be superior or inferior to the Project from an environmental perspective. On the other hand, the residential alternative would clearly fail to meet Redevelopment and Planning Objectives related to land use compatibility. For these reasons, the finding is made that specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the residential alternative for the Property, and the residential alternative is hereby rejected. Large Publi~ Park. During the public scoping meetings for the 1992 EIR, several comments from nearby residents suggested the City consider a park/open space use as the main use for the Property. In June 1990, the Cambrian Community Council also recommended that a park be considered for the Property as part of a mixed use project. A public park use would generate less traffic than the Project, and generally would produce more limited environmental effects related to air quality, construction impacts, hazardous materials impacts, cultural resource impacts, and seismic safety impacts. 1030Q6.P$O 12/30/96 From this perspective, a large public park use would be the environmentally superior alternative for the Property (other than the No Project Alternative). However, a public park use would be susceptible to the same negative land use compatibility effects as a residential use at the Property, i.e., traffic noise and air quality impacts from proximity to SR-17. In addition, the Property would have no direct access to a public street and is not centrally located to the remainder of the Union Avenue neighborhood. Drive-by surveillance of the site would be difficult. Lack of public visibility is often a factor leading to security and vandalism at parks. As noted in Section V.A.3 above, the Property is challenged in meeting many of the General Plan Open Space Element criteria for suitable public park locations. Finally, a public park use alternative for the entire 23.58 acre site could cause negative financial impacts to the City and Agency as described in Section VI.A.3. Park development could require $:5-7 million of City funds and approximately $350,000 in annual maintenance costs could further impact the General Fund, possibly precluding funding ' other competing capital projects, including implementation of the Campbell Community Center Master Plan and future park acquisition and development in other areas of the City. The Agency would lose the ability to generate net sale proceeds to fund other activities in the McGlincey Lane area or to repay the City loan. 12/30,~6 In April and May 1997, the Planing Commission considered the Original Project and after recommending certification of the 1996 SEIR, recommended to the City Council that the project be redesigned to allow for incorporation of a four acre public open space amenity on the Site. On Sune 17, 1997, the City Council in considering the Original Project and in response to the recommendation of the Planning Commission, requested that the Developer submit a redesign of the Original Project, to permit consideration of a four acre public open space area. The Planning Commission, in making its recommendation, acknowledged that while it was not desirable to develop the entire Site as public open space, the Open Space Element of the General Plan identifies a need for "neighborhood" size parks or opens space sites ( 4 to 6 acres in size), particularly in the Union Avenue area (including the McGlincey Lane area). And while it is acknowledged that this area may not conform to all Open Space criteria, this condition does not create a potential adverse environmental impact. In fact, it may provide environmental benefit. For these reasons, the Commission has recommended that a four -acre park or open space be included in the Project as revised. This acreage can be set aside without an unacceptable significant effect on the economics of developing the Property and furthering the redevelopment goals in the area. In summary, while a public park use over the entire Site would prove environmentally superior to the Project, that alternative would fail to satisfy nearly all of the community's Redevelopment and Planning Objectives in the McGlincey Lane area. For these reasons, the finding is made that specific economic, social or other considerations make feasible the partial use of the Site for public Open space use and infeasible the entire use of the Site for public park and the use of the entire Site for a public park alternative is hereby rejected. The Commercial Recreation Alternative. A commercial recreation land use on the Property might consist of a golf practice range, a family recreation complex, a buffer area between the site and the mobile home park, and possible inclusion of the City corporation yard. The golf practice range is assumed to have 50 stations on two levels, and a club house/pro shop of about 2,000 square feet. The family recreation complex may include uses such as an arcade, restaurant, miniature golf course, go-cart track, batting cages, bumper rides, children rides, and 'soft play' area. Most of these activities would be outdoors. -16- Ce lO3OQ6.P~o 12/3o~6 A commercial recreation alternative would generate approximately 5,800 vehicle trips daily (as opposed to an estimated 2,538 daily trips for the Project), but the trips would likely be distributed more evenly throughout a 24-hour period than the AM/PM peak distribution associated with the proposed Project. A substantial number of trips would be generated in the late afternoon and evening, when children are not in school. This alternative would also generate higher noise levels than the proposed Project, because · the majority of activities would take place outdoors. Several activities, such as go-carts, bumper cars, and children rides, could generate substantial noise levels which may impact the Pasco de Palomas mobile home park. Other variants of a commercial recreation alternative might have fewer high-noise impacts, but any commercial recreation variant involving outdoor activities is likely to have noise impacts that exceed those anticipated for the Project. Environmental effects of a commercial recreation alternative related to construction impact, hazardous materials, and cultural resource disturbance are likely to be similar to the anticipated impacts of the Project. A commercial recreation alternative would fail to meet fundamental Redevelopment and Planning Objectives related to land use compatibility problems with the adjacent mobile home park (see Section VA.3 above). One variant of the commercial recreation alternative considered by the Agency was the proposal in response to the development RFP submitted by a non-profit recreational entity called "Sports Mall". When other development proposals were rejected by the Agency Board, the "Sports Mall Task Force" was provided an opportunity to demonstrate the f'mancial viability of their project. The Sports Mall proposal includes various indoor and outdoor sports activities on a lease or membership basis. An independent economic report commissioned by the Task Force indicated that financing for such a project was tenuous. It was determined that this kind of facility would likely serve as a regional rather than local resource, and no other public agencies were willing to step forward at that time to participate in financing such a project. The Task Force was not able to adequately demonstrate the financial viability of their project, and the proposed sports mall concept was not considered further. For these reasons, the finding is made that specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the commercial recreation alternative for the Property, and the commercial recreation alternative is hereby rejected. OVERALL FINDING REGARDING ALTERNATIVES After consideration of a reasonable range of identified alternatives to the -17- Project, the Agency and the City Council fred that none is as beneficial to the community as the proposed Project in terms of achieving the Redevelopment and Planning Objectives, and that because of each alternative's inability to achieve one or more of the Redevelopment and Planning Objectives, each identified alternative is rejected as being infeasible. 1030Q6.PSO 12/3o/96 =2.8= EXHIBIT A ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, RECOMMENDATION OF MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORIN~ PRO~RAM, AND FINDING OF FACTS FOR THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT OF THE WINCHESTER DRIVE-IN SITE AND THE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED IN CONNECTION THEREWITH I. ~ENERAL INFORMATION A. Project Description. The project (the "Project") under consideration by the City of Campbell Planning Commission (the "Commission") is an approximately 325,000 square foot research and development/light industrial park on the 23.5 acre former Winchester Drive-In Site (the "Property") within the Central Campbell Redevelopment Project Area (the "Project Area") in the City of Campbell, California (the "City"). The Project square footage will be divided among several buildings, which may range in size from approximately 40,000 square feet to approximately 100,000 square feet. The buildings may be one or two stories in height, and likely will be constructed of tilt-up concrete with wood and/or stucco cladding. The proposed site plan of the Project is contained in the 1996 SEIR (defined below). Development of the Project will require removal of the deteriorated asphalt paving currently on the Property, and site preparation activities such as minor excavation, grading, and possible importation of engineered fill. Off-site improvements will include extension of water and storm drainage facilities to the Property, traffic mitigation improvements to affected intersections in the area, and access street improvements. B. Backqround; The 1992 EIR. The Property has been vacant for the past 15 years, and has been under various ownerships. In 1984, Caz Development was approved to construct a 420,000 light industrial project. However the project was never built. In 1991, Western Federal Savings (then the owner of the Property) submitted a Planned Development permit application (PDgl-04) to the City to construct a 245,000 square foot destination retail center on the Property. At the same time, the City and Agency initiated an amendment to the Central Campbell Redevelopment Plan to allow for the addition of the McGlincey Lane Expansion Area, within which the Property is located, to the Project Area. The PD permit application for the Property and the redevelopment area expansion were evaluated together under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., "CEQA") in an EIR during 1991-92 (SCH#91053013) (the "1992 EIR"). The 1992 EIR consists of a Draft EIR dated September 1991 (SCH#91053013) (the "1992 Draft EIR"), a Final EIR dated March 1992 (containing responses to comments received on the Draft EIR) (the "1992 Final EIR"), and Exhibit A to the 1992 Resolution (described below) (containing certain text additions to the foregoing documents). The 1992 EIR evaluated the then-proposed destination retail development of the Property at a project level of detail and evaluated the other projects proposed to be undertaken in the McGlincey Lane Expansion Area at a program level of detail. The 1992 EIR was certified by the City Council and Agency in a concurrent resolution on June 2, 1992 (Resolution Nos. 8322 and 1992-19, respectively) (the "1992 Resolution"). Findings were contained in the 1992 Resolution in accordance with CEQA, 1030Q6.PS0 12/30/96 - 1 - including a Statement of Overriding Considerations for impacts pertaining to regional air quality. The destination retail project for the Property evaluated in the 1992 EIR was not developed. The Agency purchased the Property in April 1994. Shortly thereafter, the Agency began a process to determine the optimum land use for the Property. In June 1994, a series of public meetings were held to receive early input into the decision making process. From those meetings a variety of ideas for the Property were obtained, including light industrial, commercial recreation, non-profit recreation, and other uses. These potential uses were then evaluated by an economic consulting firm, Economics Research Associates, to determine the financial feasibility of these uses. In August 1995, the Agency distributed a Request for Proposals (RFP) package to developers, corporations, or other parties that might be interested in purchasing and developing all or a portion of the Property. The Agency received eight proposals from developers. After evaluation of the proposals, the Agency entered into an exclusive negotiating rights agreement with the selected developer, WTA Development of Palo Alto. In December 1996, Agency staff concluded negotiations with WTA Development on the proposed terms of a disposition and development agreement (a "DDA") which was presented for consideration by the Agency and City Council at a duly noticed public hearing on January 7, 1997. C. The 1996 SEIR. The Project as proposed by WTA Development differs in land use from the destination retail project that was proposed and evaluated in the 1992 EIR in terms of impacts related to traffic/circulation/parking, noise, air quality following buildout, land use, water supply, storm drainage, aesthetics, and alternatives. However, much of the information and analysis contained in the 1992 EIR remains valid for the currently-proposed Project, particularly with regard to impacts involving air quality during construction, hazardous materials, cultural resources, geology, drainage/flooding, biological resources, cumulative impacts, and growth inducing impacts. Under these circumstances, the City Council has determined that a Supplemental EIR (the "1996 SEIR") is required, in accordance with Section 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines (defined below), to build upon the relevant aspects of the 1992 EIR and address the different environmental impacts that may result from the change in the nature of the Project from the project that was evaluated in the 1992 EIR. The determination to prepare the 1996 SEIR is also consistent with the requirements of the 1992 Resolution calling for performance of further appropriate environmental analysis when a specific project proposal for the Property is presented for Planning Commission and City Council consideration. The 1996 SEIR incorporates by reference the 1992 EIR. The 1996 SEIR consists of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report dated October 1996 (SCH#96082018) (the "Draft 1996 SEIR") and a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report dated December 1996 (the "Final 1996 SEIR") (containing responses to comments on, and making certain revisions to, the Draft 1996 SEIR), as more fully described below. The 1996 SEIR has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the State CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq., with particular reference to Section 15163), and the City's and Agency's Local CEQA Implementation Guidelines. CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines authorize preparation of a supplement to an EIR when certain conditions are present, and when limited 1O30Q6.P5O 12/30/96 - 2 - additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation. A supplement to an EIR must be given the same kind of notice and review as is given to an initial EIR. To that end, the Agency issued a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") for the Draft 1996 SEIR to the State Clearinghouse and others on August 7, 1996. The required 30-day notice period for the NOP ended on September 6, 1996. In addition, the Agency/City conducted a public scoping meeting for the Project on July 24, 1996. The Draft 1996 SEIR was circulated from October 2 to November 16, 1996 to various Federal, State, and local agencies for their review and comment. The Draft 1996 SEIR was also provided to the Campbell Library, and was made available to members of the general public. A public meeting on the Draft 1996 SEIR was held on October 29, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. at the Campbell City Hall Council Chambers. Approximately 10 members of the public were in attendance at the workshop. The Final 1996 SEIR was made available to the public and distributed to the public agencies that commented on the Draft 1996 SEIR on December 18, 1996. The Final 1996 SEIR contains responses to 12 letters received during the Draft 1996 SEIR comment period and to comments made at the October 29, 1996 public workshop on the Draft 1996 SEIR. The Final 1996 SEIR also contains text revisions to the Draft 1996 SEIR made a result of responding to the comments received. The 1996 SEIR (with the 1992 EIR incorporated by reference) came before the Agency and the City Council on January 7, 1997 at a duly noticed joint public hearing, at which time the Agency and City Council heard oral testimony and received written communications. D. The Planning Approvals constitute the local discretionary approvals necessary to development of the Project. The Planning Approvals include a proposed General Plan amendment, a Planned Development Ordinance approval, approval of a vesting tentative map, and Site and Architecural approval. The Planning Approvals will be considered for approval or denial by the City Council upon recommendation of the Planning Commission. In Section IV of this Exhibit A, the Planning Commission recommends specified mitigation measures to address potentially significant environmental impacts of the Project. If the City Council and Planning Commission approve the Planning Approvals in their policy discretion, these adopted mitigation measures will be imposed through conditions of the Planning Approvals. Imposition of EIR mitigation measures through conditions of land use approval is the standard procedure in Campbell, and most localities, for imposing mitigation measures related to specific projects. Nothing in this Exhibit A or the Resolution to which it is attached will affect the Planning Commission's discretion, as applicable, in taking action on the Planning Approvals, or in imposing conditions of approval in addition to the mitigation measures adopted below. 1030Q6.PSO 1~3~96 3 II. OVERALL FINDINGS Before the Planning Commission may act upon the discretionary approvals described in Section I.D above, CEQA mandates that the Agency, as lead agency, and the City Council, as a responsible agency, consider the Record and make certain findings required by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) and Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The 1996 SEIR (which incorporates the 1992 EIR) identifies potentially significant impacts on the environment which are likely to result from development of the Project. Based on the following findings as to each such impact, the Planning Commission concludes that changes or alterations have been adopted and will be incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen all potentially significant environmental impacts identified by the 1996 SEIR, except for the local air quality impact identified in Section III.C.2 and in Section V below. Further, as required by Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, a monitoring program is adopted for the mitigation measures stated in and required by this Exhibit A. The purposes of the findings contained in this Exhibit A include: (1) certifying the 1996 SEIR prepared for the discretionary approvals described in Section I.D above; (2) briefly describing and summarizing the potentially significant environmental impacts of the Project; (3) describing mitigation measures for, and alternatives to, the Project; and (4) presenting the Agency's and the City's findings as to the impacts of the Project after adoption or rejection of the mitigation measures and alternatives. In addition, Section V of this Exhibit A adopts mitigation measures for certain other environmental impacts that were addressed in the 1996 SEIR (including the 1992 EIR incorporated by reference), but determined not to be potentially significant adverse environmental impacts. The description of impacts contained in this Exhibit A is intended as a summary only. The 1996 SEIR, and the documents which it incorporates (including the 1992 EIR), describe these impacts in detail. The Planning Commission certifies that the 1996 SEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and that it was presented to, and reviewed and considered by, the Planning Commission prior to acting on the discretionary approvals related to the Project. In so recommending certification, the Planning Commission recognizes that there may be "differences" among and between the information and opinions offered in the documents and testimony that make up the Record. Therefore, by these findings (including Exhibit A and the resolution adopting this Exhibit A), the Planning Commission acknowledges and recommends certification of the clarifications and/or modifications of the 1996 SEIR as set forth in these findings, and determines that these findings shall control and that the 1996 SEIR shall be deemed to be adequate subject to the determinations reached by Planning Commission in these findings, which are based on the substantial evidence in the Record described above. III. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT In compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) and Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines, this Section IV analyzes and makes required findings regarding the potentially significant environmental impacts of the Project as identified in the 1996 SEIR, including the potentially significant impacts identified in the 1992 EIR that have been found to remain relevant to the currently contemplated Project on the Property. The following analysis and findings are based on substantial evidence in the Record. 1030Q6.P50 12/30/96 - 4 - For each identified potentially significant environmental impact, this Section III: (1) summarizes the impact, (2) describes and adopts applicable mitigation measures for the impact, (3) adopts a monitoring program for the adopted mitigation measure(s) in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, and (4) makes one of the findings required by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The proposed monitoring programs are detailed in Attachment 1 to this Exhibit A. The identified impacts are considered by major impact category, generally in the order set forth in the 1996 SEIR. A. TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION/PARKING 1. Traffic Impact at Union Avenue/McGlincey Lane Intersection. a. Potentially Significant Impact. Operating at a level of service ("LOS") E under the background traffic conditions, the Union Avenue/McGlincey Lane intersection would operate at a projected LOS F under the Project condition, constituting a significant impact under the traffic impact criteria defined in Section 3.1 of the Draft 1996 SEIR. Under the existing roadway conditions and with the projected Project condition traffic, it is anticipated that the eastbound movements of this intersection would experience excessive delay. The signal warrants analysis contained in Section 3.1 of the Draft 1996 SEIR also indicates the need for installation of a traffic signal at this intersection. b. Mitigation Measures. (1) A traffic signal will be installed at this intersection following Project completion. (2) An exclusive eastbound left-turn lane will be provided from McGlincey Lane to Union Avenue. (3) Three parking spaces will be removed at the east leg of the intersection (on the south side of McGlincey Lane). (This mitigation measure will, in turn, cause a parking impact described in Section IV.A.4 below.) c. Monitoring Program. The monitoring program identified under Category I.A.1 (Union/McGlincey Intersection) in Attachment 1 to this Exhibit A is hereby incorporated by reference as the monitoring program for the above described mitigation measures. d. Finding. The above mitigation measures and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based on the information and analysis in Sections 1.2.1 and 3.1 of the Draft 1996 SEIR, the finding is made that adoption of the above mitigation measures and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant traffic impact of the Project on the Union Avenue/McGlincey Lane intersection. With the implementation of the traffic signal and eastbound turn lane measures, the Union Avenue/McGlincey Lane intersection is projected to operate at LOS D or better under Project conditions, thus resulting in an acceptable service level under the traffic impact criteria employed by the City of Campbell and City of San Jose. 2. Traffic Impact at Camden/Union Intersection. a. Potentially Significant Impact. Operating at LOS E (or LOS F based on the City of San Jose level of service methodology) under 1030Q6.P50 1~3~96 -5- the background and Project conditions, this intersection would experience a 1.35 percent increase in critical movement volumes. As indicated in Section 3.1 of the Draft 1996 SEIR, the City of San Jose defines a project as having a significant impact if the addition of the Project traffic increases the critical movement volumes by more than one percent at an intersection operating at LOS E or F under the background condition. b. Mitiqation Measures. The northbound approach (on Union Avenue) will be restriped to provide an exclusive right-turn lane. c. Monitorinq Proqram. The monitoring program identified under Category I.A.1 (Camden/Union Intersection) in Attachment 1 to this Exhibit A is hereby incorporated by reference as the monitoring program for the above described mitigation measure. d. Findinq. The above mitigation measure and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based on the information and analysis in Sections 1.2.1 and 3.1 of the Draft 1996 SEIR, the finding is made that adoption of the above mitigation measure and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant traffic impact of the Project on the Camden Avenue/Union Avenue intersection. Level of service and traffic operations at the Camden Avenue/Union Avenue intersection can be improved by re-striping the northbound approach of the intersection and adding a new exclusive right-turn lane. Addition of the northbound right-turn lane will result in improvement of LOS F to LOS E at this intersection, based on the City of San Jose level of service methodology, resulting in less than 1 percent increase in critical movement volumes. This result is within the acceptable service level range under the traffic impact criteria employed by the City of Campbell and the City of San Jose. Intersection. Traffic Impact at McGlince¥ Lane/Curtner Avenue a. Potentially Siqnificant Impact. The results of signal warrant analysis indicate that signal warrant 11, Peak Hour Volume Warrant, is met at the McGlincey Lane/Curtner Avenue intersection. (Section 4 (Traffic/Circulation subsection) of the 1992 Draft EIR also indicated the need for improvement of this intersection.) b. Mitiqation Measures. Instead of a traffic signal, traffic operations will be improved through a reconfiguration of the intersection, generally as described in Section 4 (Traffic/Circulation subsection) of the 1992 Draft EIR and Section 3.1 of the Draft 1996 SEIR, to accommodate through traffic from Curtner Avenue eastbound to McGlincey Lane northbound. Details of the intersection reconfiguration design are still being developed. c. Monitorinq Proqram. The monitoring program identified under Category I.A.3 in Attachment 1 to this Exhibit A is hereby incorporated by reference as the monitoring program for the above described mitigation measure. d. Findinq. The above mitigation measure and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based on the information and analysis in Section 4 (Traffic/Circulation subsection) of the 1992 Draft EIR and Section 3.1 of the Draft 1996 SEIR, the finding is made that adoption of the above mitigation measure and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant traffic impact of the Project and surrounding uses on the McGlincey Lane/Curtner Avenue intersection. The proposed intersection 1O30Q6.P5O 12/3o/96 - 6 - reconfiguration will effectively redirect traffic in a manner that will substantially lessen the identified traffic impact at this intersection. 4. Parkinq Impact. a. Potentially Siqnificant Impact. The mitigation measure described in Section IV.A.i.b.(3) above will result in the removal of three parking spaces near the intersection of Union Avenue and McGlincey Lane. b. Mitiqation Measure. The City will provide at least three replacement parking spaces on McGlincey Lane by removing existing unwarranted parking restrictions and red curbs in the area. c. Monitorinq Proqram. The monitoring program identified under Category I.A.2 in Attachment 1 to this Exhibit A is hereby incorporated by reference as the monitoring program for the above described mitigation measure. d. Findinq. The above mitigation measure and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based on the information in Sections 1.2.1 and 3.1 of the Draft 1996 SEIR, the finding is made that adoption of the above mitigation measure and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant parking impact of the Project. Provision of replacement parking on a 1:1 or better basis in the same vicinity as the lost spaces will retain the same level of off-site parking as existed prior to reconfiguration of the McGlincey Lane/Union Avenue intersection. B. NOISE 1. Construction Noise Impact. a. Potentially Siqnificant Impact. Construction of the Project would require some grading, limited excavation, and the use of other equipment typically necessary during construction of commercial and industrial projects. Typical construction noise levels are shown in Figure 3-13 of the Draft 1996 SEIR. These are maximum noise levels generated by each individual piece of construction equipment at a distance of 50 feet. Noise levels at the mobile home park would be highest when construction takes place near the mobile home park adjoining the Property to the east. Noise levels would be reduced when construction takes place further away from this Property boundary. Average noise levels (Leq) during busy construction periods typically range from 75-85 decibels ("dBA") at a distance of 50 feet from the center of construction activity. Average noise levels would, therefore, be audible above ambient noise levels, and above a 60 dBA threshold typically used to assess speech and activity interference. b. Mitiqation Measures. (1) Noise generating construction activities will be restricted to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Director. (2) Ail internal combustion engine-driven equipment will be maintained in a good working condition, and fitted with mufflers which are also in good condition. (3) Noise sources, such as air compressors and concrete pumpers, will be located as far as possible from the nearest residences. 1030Q6.PSO 1~3~96 -7- (4) The Developer and/or the City will designate a "disturbance coordinator" who will be responsible for responding to complaints about noise (e.g., starting too early, poor mufflers, etc.). This person will have the authority to take the necessary actions to gain conformance with these conditions. The telephone number and name of this person will be conspicuously posted at the construction site to provide communication among the neighbors, the Developer, and the City. c. Monitorinq Proqram. The monitoring program identified under Category I.B.2 in Attachment 1 to this Exhibit A is hereby incorporated by reference as the monitoring program for the above described mitigation measures. d. Findinq. The above mitigation measures and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the information and analysis in Sections 1.2.1 and 3.2 of the Draft 1996 SEIR, the finding is made that adoption of the above mitigation measures and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant impact of construction noise described above. Limiting construction hours, maintaining equipment in good condition, locating significant noise-generating equipment away from residences, and designating a disturbance coordinator with specified responsibilities are established methods used in Campbell and other localities to reduce construction noise from a project such as the Project below the acceptable thresholds identified in Section 3.2 of the Draft 1996 SEIR. 2. Impact of Noise Generated by Project. a. Potentially Siqnificant Impact. The Paseo de Palomas mobile home park adjoins the Property to the northeast. The proposed site plan for the Project includes a 50-foot landscaped buffer along the northeastern Property boundary. The Project is not expected to result in a substantial increase in noise at the mobile home park. It is, however, possible that mechanical equipment on Project buildings could generate noise exceeding existing ambient levels and appropriate property line limits. b. Mitiqation Measures. (1) The noise standards in Table 3-12 of the Draft 1996 SEIR will be applied as performance standards for the proposed Project which may affect noise sensitive land uses. Exceptions to the standards shall be limited to the following: (A) In the event the measured ambient noise level exceeds the applicable noise level standard in the category expressed in Table 3-12, the applicable standard will be adjusted so as to equal the ambient noise level. (B) Each of the noise level standards specified in Table 3-12 will be reduced by 5 dBA for simple tone noises, noises consisting primarily of speech or music, or for recurring impulsive noises. (2) Consistent with City policy, a solid masonry sound wall will be required at the common boundary of the Property and adjacent residential use. c. Monitorinq Proqram. The monitoring program identified under Category I.B.1 in Attachment 1 to this Exhibit A is hereby incorporated 1030Q6.P50 12/30/96 8 by reference as the monitoring program for the above described mitigation measures. d. Finding. The above mitigation measures and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the information and analysis in Sections 1.2.1 and 3.2 of the Draft 1996 SEIR, the finding is made that the adoption of the above mitigation measures and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessens the potentially significant impact of noise generated by the Project described above. Adherence to the performance standards set forth in Table 3-12 of the Draft SEIR (which standards have been developed through extensive scientific research for application in situations like the Project) will reduce noise from mechanical equipment in the Project to acceptable levels on surrounding uses, as defined in Section 3.2 of the Draft 1996 SEIR. Likewise, the City has found from past experience that masonry soundwalls significantly mitigate noise impacts of office/commercial uses on adjacent residential uses. C. AIR QUALITY 1. Construction Impacts. a. Potentially Significant Impact. Construction activities associated with the Project would create additional sources of dust from clearing, grading, and other construction-related activities. (This potential impact was identified in the 1992 EIR and is found to be relevant to the Project, as noted in Section 1.2.2 of the Draft 1996 SEIR) . b. Mitigation. (1) Earthmoving or other dust-producing activities for the Project will be suspended during high wind periods when dust is readily visible in the air. (2) Equipment and manpower for watering of all exposed or disturbed soil surfaces will be provided at least twice daily, including weekends and holidays. An appropriate dust palliative or suppressant, added to water before application, will be utilized. (3) Stockpiles of debris, soil, sand, or other materials that can be blown by the wind will be watered or covered. (4) Construction areas and adjacent streets will be swept of all mud and debris, since this material can be pulverized and later resuspended by vehicle traffic. (5) The speed of all construction vehicles will be limited to 15 miles per hour while on site. c. Monitoring Program. The monitoring program identified under Category II.A.1 in Attachment 1 to this Exhibit A is hereby incorporated by reference as the monitoring program for the above described mitigation measures. d. Finding. The above mitigation measures and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the information and analysis in Section 4 (Air Quality subsection) of the 1992 Draft EIR and Section 1.2.2 of the Draft 1996 SEIR, the finding is made that the adoption of the above mitigation measures and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant impact on air quality resulting from Project 1030Q6.P50 12/30/96 - 9 - construction described above. The use of watering alone for dust control is estimated to reduce dust emissions by approximately 50 percent. The combined effect of the above mitigation measures, including the use of a dust suppressant, would have a control efficiency of 70 to 80 percent, which would reduce construction-related air quality impacts to a less than significant level. 2. Impact Followinq Construction. a. Potentially Siqnificant Impact. When compared to the background conditions, traffic generated by the Project would create slight differences in carbon monoxide ("CO") concentrations. The Project would result in increases in CO concentrations at two intersections (Union/Campbell and Camden/Curtner), no change at two intersections (Bascom/Camden and Bascom/Curtner), and a decrease at one intersection (Bascom/Union) . The decrease in concentration is likely a result of changes in signal timing to accommodate the changes in traffic levels. At most, the Project would increase 1-hour CO levels by 0.4 parts per million ("ppm") and 8-hour CO levels by 0.3 ppm relative to background conditions. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District ("BAAQMD") has issued guidelines for evaluating the significance of air quality impacts (BAAQMD, 1995). For carbon monoxide concentrations from motor vehicles, a project would have a significant impact if it causes a new exceedance of a CO standard or makes worse an existing exceedance. As a result, the increase in concentrations at the Camden/Curtner and Union/Campbell intersections would represent a significant air quality impact because 1-hour and 8-hour CO exceedances would become worse under Project conditions. Air quality impacts at the other intersections would be less than significant. b. Mitiqation Measure. The most commonly applied mitigation measures for automobile-generating pollutants (and the only possible ones identified by the experienced preparer of the 1996 SEIR and by the Agency and City Council) are Transportation Demand Management or Transportation Systems Management programs (collectively, a "TDM/TSM Program"). For reasons set forth in the findings below, a TDM/TSM Program is not adopted as a mitigation measure for the Project impacts on CO concentrations at two specified intersections following construction. c. Monitorinq Proqram. Not applicable. d. Findinq. Based on the information and analysis in Sections 1.2.1 and 3.3 of the Draft 1996 SEIR and for the reasons summarized below, the findings are made that the identified air quality impact could not be reduced to a less than significant level even with the implementation of a TDM/TSM Program, and that specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the TDM/TSM Program mitigation measure identified in the 1996 SEIR. An aggressive TDM program has the potential to marginally reduce daily trips by about 10 to 25 percent, and air quality impacts associated with automobile usage would be reduced proportionally. However, a 10 to 25 percent reduction in the daily trips associated with the Project would not bring the local air quality impacts at the two identified intersections to below a level of significance. Significant unmitigatable air quality impacts would continue to occur at the intersections identified above even if a TDM/TSM Program were adopted. 1030Q6.P50 12/30/96 - 1 0 - Some reasons for the limited effectiveness of a TDM/TSM Program are as follows. Although promising in concept, reducing peak hour traffic through trip demand management has not proved to be an effective tool in changing trip behavior by employees, except for very large employers whose employees for the most part work on fixed schedules. For carpooling to be effective, there must be a large enough employee base so that a significant number of persons interested in carpooling and with similar origins and work times can be matched. For the transit mode, there must be a high level of transit on streets that are within 1/4 mile of the work site. And in both cases, there must be time and/or cost incentives, such as high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes and preferential parking. Unfortunately, many of these factors are beyond the control of an individual developer. It can not influence residential location, the level of transit service, or the extent to which HOV lanes have been added to freeways and expressways. Unfortunately, neither the proposed Project nor its size or usage fit well the conditions that are prime candidates for successful TDM/TSM programs. Forcing the Developer to have such a program would not be cost-effective and likely would not increase the number of non-single occupancy vehicle trips beyond what would occur through informal participation. The distance of the Property from transit routes, free on-site parking, and the absence of HOV lanes on Highway 17 eliminate the most promising incentives that could be used in a TDM/TSM Program. Finally, the nature and size of the proposed Project is not one that is likely to have a large enough beneficial effect to justify a TDM/TSM Program. While the benefits of the TDM/TSM Program would not significantly reduce the identified air quality impact, the cost of imposing a TDM/TSM Program could be sufficiently severe as to render it impractical to proceed with the Project. The Project, at full buildout, will contain about 325,000 square feet of building space and employ an estimated 750 employees. A program of this size is not large enough to create a critical mass and economies of scale that would support the cost of a TDM/TSM Program. Such costs include information dissemination, ridership coordination, administration, monitoring, and enforcement. These costs are relatively fixed, regardless of project size. The Planning Commission is not aware of any successful business park developments in the Silicon Valley of similar scope to the proposed Project in which a TDM/TSM Program has been imposed, and no such program has been imposed on other developments in Campbell for similar reasons. Further, because of the Property's relatively isolated location, a TDM/TSM Program would be difficult to coordinate with existing public transit routes and facilities. Because of the likely multiple ownership of parcels in the Property upon buildout of the Project and the multiplicity of separately owned businesses in the surrounding McGlincey Lane industrial area, it would be administratively and legally impractical, if not impossible, to coordinate a large enough mass of geographically related employment generators in the vicinity of the Project to economically support a TDM/TSM Program. In summary, the relatively fixed costs of a TDM/TSM Program are too high to be borne by the Developer or end users without rendering the Project non- competitive and impractical. The benefits of such a TDM/TSM Program would be marginal and would not reduce the significant air quality impact described above to a non-significant level. For these reasons, economic and other considerations make infeasible the TDM/TSM Program identified in the 1996 SEIR. It should be noted that, for similar reasons, the experienced EIR consultant did not recommend adoption of the identified mitigation measure. 1030Q6.PS0 12/30/96 - 11 - D. WATER SUPPLY CONSTRUCTION IMPACT 1. Potentially Significant Impact. According to the Central Fire District and San Jose Water Company, the fire flow requirement for development of the Property with the proposed Project would be 3,500 gallons per minute ("gpm"). According to a study performed by the San Jose Water Company, the existing water supply system serving the Property is not adequate to provide the required fire flow. the Water Company has identified the improvements required to provide the needed fire flow to the Property. These improvements would be both within and outside the McGlincey Lane area, and would generally consist of new water pipes, new hydrants, meters, and ancillary items. The impacts associated with installation of water system improvements would primarily be construction-related impacts such as noise, dust, and traffic diversion. 2. Mitigation Measures. a. In consultation with the Central Fire District and San Jose Water Company, the Developer and/or City will install the necessary water supply improvements to provide adequate fire flows to the Property. b. Construction activities related to installation of the proposed water supply improvements will be coordinated with the appropriate jurisdiction to reduce construction-related impacts. c. Specifically, the construction mitigation measures described in Section IV.B.1 and C.1 above will be implemented and are incorporated in this Section IV.D by this reference. 3. Monitoring Program. The monitoring program identified under Category I.D.1 in Attachment 1 to this Exhibit A is hereby incorporated by reference as the monitoring program for the above described mitigation measures. 4. Finding. The above mitigation measures and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the information and analysis in Sections 1.2.1, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.5 of the Draft 1996 SEIR, the finding is made that adoption of the above mitigation measures and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant construction-related impacts of installing water supply improvements described above. Coordinating with the relevant regulatory agencies, limiting construction hours, maintaining equipment in good condition, locating significant noise-generated equipment away from residences, designating a disturbance coordinator with specific responsibilities, and implementing specified dust suppression measures are established methods used in Campbell and other localities to reduce construction-related impacts from public utility improvement projects, such as noise, dust and traffic diversion, to an acceptable, non-significant level. E. STORM DRAINAGE CONSTRUCTION IMPACT 1. Potentially Significant Impact. Specific storm drain improvements for the proposed Project will consist of a new storm drain on the Property itself, catch basins, and some off-site improvements of which the impacts associated with those improvements would primarily be construction- related impacts such as noise, dust, and traffic diversion. 2. Mitigation Measures. The above-identified construction- related impacts will be mitigated through compliance with the City's t030Q6.PSO 12/30/96 - 12 - ordinances and regulations relating to infrastructure construction in City rights-of-way. In addition, the construction mitigation measures described in Section III.B.1 and III.C.1 above will be implemented and are incorporated in this Section III.E by this reference. 3. Monitorinq Proqram. The monitoring program identified under Category II.E.1 in Attachment 1 to this Exhibit A is hereby incorporated by reference as the monitoring program for the above described mitigation measures. 4. Findinq. The above mitigation measures and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the information and analysis in Sections 1.2.2, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.6 of the Draft 1996 SEIR and Section 4 (Drainage/Flooding) of the 1992 Draft EIR, the finding is made that adoption of the above mitigation measures and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant construction-related impacts of installing storm drainage improvements described above. Limiting construction hours, maintaining equipment in good condition, locating significant noise-generating equipment away from residences, designating a disturbance coordinator with specified responsibilities, and implementing specified dust suppression measures are established methods used in Campbell and other localities to reduce construction-related impacts from public utility improvement projects, such as noise, dust and traffic diversion, to an acceptable, non-significant level. F. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 1. Potentially Siqnificant ImDact. The use, storage, and transport of hazardous materials to, from and on the Property as a result of the Project may result in spills, leaks, or accidents involving these materials. (This potentially significant impact was identified in the 1992 EIR and is found to be relevant to the Project, as noted in Section 1.2.2 of the Draft 1996 SEIR.) 2. Mitiqation Measure. The Santa Clara County Central Fire District will continue to implement and enforce the Hazardous Materials Storage Ordinance and Toxic Gas Ordinance. 3. Monitorinq Proqram. The monitoring program identified under Category II.B.1 in Attachment 1 to this Exhibit A is hereby incorporated by reference as the monitoring program for the above described mitigation measure. 4. Findinq. The above mitigation measures and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based on the information and analysis in Section 4 (Hazardous Materials subsection) of the 1992 Draft EIR and Sections 1.2.2 and 3.5.1 of the Draft 1996 SEIR {regarding transfer of responsibility for administration of the Hazardous Materials Ordinance and the Toxic Gas Ordinance from the City's Fire Department to the Santa Clara County Central Fire District), the findings are made that: a. the above mitigation measure is within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the Santa Clara County Central Fire District and not the Agency or the City; and mitigation measure. the District has adopted and is implementing such 1O30Q6.P5O 12/3o/96 - 1 3 - The Hazardous Materials Ordinance and the Toxic Gas Ordinance embody regulations to control hazardous materials that have been developed through extensive scientific analysis and practical experience to deal with the precise type of potential impact outlined above. These ordinances are imposed by the Santa Clara County Central Fire District, with support from the City's Public Works Environment Program staff, on a uniform basis as the best available means to mitigate the identified impact. CULTURAL RESOURCES 1. Potentially Significant Impact. Construction activities associated with the Project that involve the removal of surface paving materials could potentially unearth subsurface, buried cultural remains. (This potentially significant impact was identified in the 1992 EIR and is found to be relevant to the Project, as noted in Section 1.2.2 of the Draft 1996 SEIR.) 2. Mitigation. If cultural remains are encountered during construction activities, work will be stopped, an archaeological monitor called in, and appropriate mitigation measures will be developed and implemented. 3. Monitoring Program. The monitoring program identified under Category II.C.1 in Attachment 1 to this Exhibit A is hereby incorporated by reference as the monitoring program for the above described mitigation measures. 4. Finding. The above mitigation measure and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the information and analysis in Section 4 (Cultural Resources subsection) of the 1992 Draft EIR, the finding is made that the adoption of the above mitigation measure and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the above-described potentially significant environmental impact on cultural resources associated with Project construction. Use of a qualified archeological monitor to design specific mitigation measures, and subsequent implementation of any such measures, is the most efficient, flexible means to respond to any currently unidentified cultural remains that may be unearthed through Project construction. H. GEOLOGY 1. Potentially Significant Impact. The Project will be subject to groundshaking in the event of a major earthquake in the San Francisco Bay region. (This potentially significant impact was identified in the 1992 EIR and is found to be relevant to the Project, as noted in Section 1.2.2 of the Draft 1996 SEIR.) 2. Mitigation. Development activities associated with the Project will be required to comply with all applicable zoning and building code regulations relative to seismic construction standards, and with the Seismic Element policies in the General Plan. In particular, Seismic Element Policy #4 requires that project-specific, detailed geotechnical studies will be performed to determine site-specific hazards and mitigations. 3. Monitoring Program. The monitoring program identified under Category II.D.1 in Attachment 1 to this Exhibit A is hereby incorporated by reference as the monitoring program for the above described mitigation measures. 103~6.P50 1~3~96 -14- 4. Findinq. The above mitigation measures and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the information and analysis in Section 4 (Geology subsection) of the 1992 Draft EIR, the finding is made that the adoption of the above mitigation measure and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the above-described potentially significant environmental impact related to earthquake hazards to the Project. The City's regulations and procedures for design and construction of buildings to deal with earthquake hazards are based on extensive scientific and engineering analysis as well as substantial regulatory experience, and are imposed on a uniform basis by the City as the best available means to ensure seismic safety for building projects. IV. OTHER NON SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS While not required by CEQA, the 1996 SEIR (incorporating relevant provisions of the 1992 EIR) also evaluated certain non-significant environmental impacts of the Project and proposed mitigation measures to further reduce those impacts. Those non-significant impacts and the further mitigation measures are set forth in this Section IV. A. TRAFFIC CIRCULATION WITHIN McGLINCEY LANE INDUSTRIAL AREA 1. Potential Non-Siqnificant Impact. As documented in Sections 1.2.1 and 3.1 of the Draft 1996 SEIR, Project-generated traffic will have a less than significant effect on overall traffic circulation within the McGlincey Lane light industrial area. This non~significant traffic impact is in addition to the potentially significant traffic impacts analyzed in Section IV.A above. 2. Mitiqation Measures. To properly serve Project-generated traffic and to provide maximum operating efficiency, the following site access guidelines and mitigation measures will be implemented: a. Install a STOP and a NO RIGHT TURN sign on the east leg and a YIELD sign and NO LEFT TURN sign on the north leg of the Curtner Avenue/McGlincey Lane intersection. Remove the existing STOP signs located on the north and west legs of the intersection following completion of the proposed intersection modification. b. Access to the Property should be from McGlincey Lane via the existing easement located just west of Westchester Drive. The proposed access easement should be upgraded and improved to public city street standards, providing two traffic lanes including curb, gutter, and sidewalks. The access roadway should be designed for truck operations and no parking should be permitted on this facility. The north leg of the intersection of this access drive with McGlincey Lane should be STOP sign controlled, and provide two lanes at the north leg of the intersection including left-turn and right-turn lanes. c. Secondary access to the Property should be provided, which may be via Cristich Lane or other feasible secondary access acceptable to the City and the Central Fire District. If Cristich Lane becomes the secondary access, it should be upgraded and improved to public city street standards, and should be designed to meet minimum standards for truck traffic. d. If Cristich Lane is to provide access to the site, on- street parallel parking on both sides of Cristich Lane should be provided. 1030Q6.P50 12/30/96 -15- e. Provide on-site parking spaces to accommodate the Project's parking needs based on City requirements. f. Restripe the north leg and the southbound left turn lane of the Camden/Curtner intersection to provide additional capacity to accommodate a total of five left-turning vehicles. should be met. Ail City traffic engineering and design standards 3. Monitorinq Proqram. The monitoring program identified under Category I.A.4 in Attachment 1 to this Exhibit A is hereby incorporated as the monitoring program for the above identified mitigation measures. 4. Findinq. The above mitigation measures and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based on the information and analysis in Sections 1.2.1 and 3.1 of the Draft 1996 SEIR, the finding is made that the above mitigation measures are a cost effective means to further reduce the already non-significant impacts of Project-generated traffic within the McGlincey Lane industrial area. B. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 1. Potential Non-Siqnificant Impact. As documented in the 1992 Draft EIR (see for instance, p. 4-109), there are no natural biological communities in the McGlincey Lane Expansion Area portion of the Project Area, including the Property. Further, there are no ordinance-size trees on the Property or associated with the anticipated off-site improvements for the Project. However, in accordance with mitigation measure #34 set forth in the 1992 EIR (and adopted in the 1992 Resolution), the mitigation measure described below will be implemented to mitigate any remaining non-significant impact related to water efficient landscaping for the Project. 2. Mitiqation Measures. Landscaping plans for the Project will comply with the City's Water Efficient Landscape (WEL) standards and will follow the California Native Plant Society's general revegitation principles, as follows: a. Trees, shrubs, and other herbaceous plants should be used which are naturalized to the general McGlincey Expansion Area. b. If non-indigenous native species are desired for the purpose of form, floral characteristics, or function (ground covers, etc.), species selected should be those which are unlikely to hybridize with local flora, in order to preserve the integrity of the gene pool of the local native species. c. Use of exotic plants should be avoided. 3. Monitorinq Proqram. The Planning Department will impose the above mitigation measures through review of landscaping plans as part of, and through conditions of approval to, the Planning Approvals for the Project. The Public Works Department will ensure compliance with the mitigation measures in the field. The mitigation measures will be implemented at the time of the Planning Approvals and as construction occurs. 4. Findinq. Based upon the information and analyses in Section 4 (Biological Resources) of the 1992 Draft EIR and a recent field investigation regarding potential ordinance-size trees: 1O3OQ6.P5O 12/30/96 - 16 - a. The finding is made that the Project will not have a significant effect on biological resources. The above mitigation measures and monitoring program are nonetheless adopted to further mitigate any non- significant impact related to water efficient landscaping for the Project. b. The finding is further made pursuant to 14 California Code of Regulations Section 753.5(e) that, considering the record as a whole, approval and implementation of the Project involves no potential for adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on vegetation or wildlife, and that, therefore, no fee is required in connection with the filing of Notice of Determination with respect to the 1996 SEIR or the discretionary approvals for the Project. In compliance with 14 California Code of Regulation Section 753.5, the following additional information is provided: (i) The name and address of the Project proponents are: City of Campbell Redevelopment Agency 70 North First Street Campbell, CA 95008 and Campbell Technology Park LLC 900 Welch Road, Suite 10 Palo Alto, CA 94304 (2) The Project is the development of a high-end business park as fully described in Section I.A of this Exhibit A. (3) The 1992 EIR (see citation above) addresses the issue of environmental impact of the Project on vegetation and wildlife, and concludes that approval and implementation of the Project on the Property will have no significant effect on vegetation or wildlife. (4) When considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence before the Agency or the City Council that the proposed adoption and implementation of the Project will have potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. (5) The Planning Commission have, on the basis of substantial evidence, consisting of the above recited information, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect contained in 14 California Code of Regulations, Section 753.5(d). V. UNAVOIDABLE SIaNIFICANT IMPACT Based on the analysis contained in the 1996 SEIR (including the 1992 EIR as incorporated therein by reference) and Section III of this Exhibit A, the following unavoidable significant adverse impact of approval and implementation of the Project is identified: The increase in concentrations of carbon monoxide at the Camden/Curtner and Union/Campbell intersections as a result of anticipated Project- related traffic would represent a significant unmitigated air quality impact because 1-hour and 8-hour carbon monoxide exceedances would become worse under Project conditions. 1030Q6.PSO 12/30/96 - 17 - As to this significant environmental impact, the Planning Commission finds that there are no feasible mitigation measures identified in the 1996 SEIR that might reduce the level of significance of this impact, and specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the adoption of the only possible mitigation measure (as detailed in Section III.C.2.d above) or the project alternatives (as detailed in Section VI below). Therefore, in order to approve the Planning Approvals, the approval resolution or other official approval action must contain the City Council's statement of overriding considerations in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) and Section 15093(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines. VI. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT A. OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION CRITERIA 1. Introduction. This Section VI.A provides an introduction to and overview of the extensive evaluation of alternatives to the Project and reuse of the Property that has been performed by the Agency and City Council, in consultation with nearby property owners and the general Campbell community, over the past several years. Section VI.B below evaluates four specific alternative uses for the Property in terms of environmental effects and ability to achieve redevelopment and other community objectives. The information and analysis in this Section VI is drawn from Section 5 of the 1992 Draft EIR, Section 4 of the Draft 1996 SEIR (as modified in the Final 1996 SEIR), the ERA Alternatives Study, the Staff Reports on Alternatives, and other information known through deliberations and discussions on alternative uses for the Property. 2. Overview of Process Since 1992 EIR. The 1992 EIR evaluated several alternatives for the Property in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines, including the No Project Alternative and several alternative land uses on the Property. After the Agency purchased the Property in 1994, it conducted an extensive public process to determine the optimum land use for the Property. A variety of land use concepts for the Property were developed, and were formally evaluated in the ERA Alternatives Study (1995) and the Staff Reports on Alternatives (1996). The purpose of the ERA Alternatives Study, the Staff Reports on Alternatives, and the Agency's public input process was to help determine a land development strategy that balanced environmental considerations, Campbell's financial and non-financial objectives for the Property, and the ability to improve the McGlincey Lane area's infrastructure. Through a series of meetings and evaluations, four land use alternatives for the site were developed, taking into account and building upon the evaluation of land use alternatives set forth in the 1992 EIR. The predominant land uses in the four alternatives were: commercial recreation, industrial, residential, and public park. Because there was an interest in relocating the City's corporation yard to the Property, each alternative then had two sub-alternatives or variations, one with and one without the corporation yard. The land sale or land lease revenue potential of each alternative was analyzed, in addition to overall municipal cost and revenue implications. The cost analysis included roadway improvements, utilities upgrading, park development, park maintenance, and other General Fund service costs. The Agency's evaluation on how to proceed with the use of the Property also considered the compatibility of the use with the surrounding neighborhood, other environmental issues as outlined in the 1992 EIR, the desires of the 1030Q6.P50 12/30/96 - 18 - community, and potentially creative proposals which developers would be able to bring into the process. After the ERA Alternatives Study was received and reviewed by the Agency Board, the Agency decided to issue an RFP to developers, corporations, and other parties that might be interested in purchasing and developing all or a portion of the Property. The RFP did not restrict the proposals to a certain land use or development type; rather, it identified the range of four land uses that had been evaluated in the ERA Alternatives Study and encouraged submittals for creative projects that could meet the City's and Agency's financial and non-financial objectives. The Agency received eight proposals from developers, four for commercial recreation, three for research and development/light industrial, and one for a private school. Upon extensive evaluation and public discussion, the Agency Board chose to negotiate with WTA Development for the sale of the Property and development of the Project because the Project appears to best meet the goals and objectives established for the Property, taking into account relevant environmental impacts. 3. RedeveloDment and Planninq Objectives. In determining what land use alternatives were viable for the Property, several objectives were considered including the following (the "Redevelopment and Planning Objectives"): a. Land Use Compatibility. The Agency evaluated what kind of land use would be compatible where the surrounding land use consisted of primarily industrial uses bordered by a freeway. This setting makes a residential reuse of the Property very problematic. Additionally, residents of the Paseo de Palomas Mobile Home Park immediately adjacent to the Property are particularly concerned with a recreational use that might include sports activities, such as a golf driving range or sports fields where noise would be a concern. Development of a research and development/light industrial business park on the Property is generally viewed as the most compatible land use. b. Redevelopment Goals and Objectives. The Redevelopment Plan identifies several goals for the McGlincey Lane area, including improvement of Cristich Lane to a public street, extending storm drain to address existing point and non-point source water pollution concerns, improving water supply to provide adequate fire flow and to address inadequate fire suppression conditions in the area, and to facilitate the development of the Property which has been a blight in the area for 14 years. Existing redevelopment funds and anticipated tax increment revenues are not adequate to finance these capital projects. The net proceeds generated by the sale of the Property and the development of the site itself could help finance many of these improvements. Without such net sale proceeds, Agency tax increment revenue from the area is not likely to be sufficient to fund new redevelopment activities in the forseeable future. c. Financial Feasibility. The City loaned the Agency $3.34 million to acquire the Property on a short term basis to help facilitate its development. The Agency determined that, at a minimum, the sale of the Property should generate enough revenue to retire the Agency's debt to the City, net any Agency costs and obligations associated with the development of the Property. Based on the commercial recreation projects proposed, none were determined to be financially feasible under this standard, while the proposed research and development Project is estimated to provide a net return sufficient to find storm drain and Cristich Lane improvements of benefit to 1030Q6.P50 12/30/96 - 1 9 - the McGlincey Lane area and yield additional funds in excess of $2 million after costs and expenses. d. Public Open Spaces. In addition to the acquisition costs, developing and maintaining the Property as a public park would require an additional $5 to $7 million depending upon the extent of onsite improvements and required offsite improvements needed to develop adequate access and infrastructure to the Property. Additionally, the site is challenged in meeting many of the criteria established on page 8 of the Open Space Element of the General Plan for acquiring and developing open space. For example, the Property is not within walking distance to a significant number of Campbell neighborhoods, it is not particularly visible or accessible to Campbell residents due to lack of convenient pedestrian and vehicular access, and the frequency of commercial trucks and vehicles in the area does not provide a desirable condition for public open space and park land as defined by the Open Space Element. Given the costs for development, a 23~acre park does not appear to be financially feasible for a City which already supports a City-wide 30-acre recreational facility at the Community Center. In addition, local youth sports groups such as the Campbell Little League, Bobby Sox, and Soccer Leagues have not expressed support, and other public agencies either did not express support or were not financially able to consider a partnership with Campbell for development of the site. These Redevelopment and Planning Objectives have been distilled from the General Plan, the Redevelopment Plan, the 1992 Report to City Council, the Agency's Implementation Plan and other evidence in the Record, and provide a basis for evaluating the ability of various alternatives to satisfy the Agency/City goals for redevelopment of the Property. 4. The 1996 SEIR Alternatives Analysis. Several of the land use alternatives for the Property evaluated in the 1992 EIR remain relevant and valid as alternatives to the Project for CEQA purposes. The analysis of these alternatives is incorporated by reference in the 1996 SEIR and is summarized (with appropriate updates) in Section VI.B below. Specifically, Section VI.B.1 evaluates the No Project Alternative, as required by CEQA. Section VI.B.2 evaluates two land use alternatives for the Property that were initially considered in the 1992 EIR and that have been a focus of continuing consideration by the Agency over the past two and a half years, as outlined above: a residential use, and a public park use. The only use of the Property that has received serious consideration in the ERA Alternatives Study and subsequent Agency deliberations, but that was not evaluated from an environmental alternatives perspective in the 1992 EIR, is the commercial recreation use. Section VII.B.3 below provides a summary of the environmental and other impacts of a commercial recreation use, based on the new discussion of that alternative contained in the 1996 SEIR. The 1992 EIR and the 1996 SEIR did not analyze any alternative location for the Project. Recent court cases suggest that CEQA may, where appropriate, require an analysis of alternative locations for a project, as well as alternative projects on the same site. CEQA requires that the alternatives be capable of obtaining the basic objectives of the proposed project Section 15126(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines). For the following reasons, it has been concluded that there is no feasible alternative location for the Project. The Property is the only relatively large, currently undeveloped site in the City of Campbell or immediate environs that could accommodate a high-end research and development park of the size and scope contemplated for the Project. Assembling a ~030Q6.P50 ~2/3o/96 - 2 0 - sufficiently large site to accommodate the Project at another location in Campbell or its environs would result in business and residential relocation, demolition, public infrastructure improvements, and conflicting land use in built-up neighborhoods that would cause more disruption and adverse environmental impact than would development of the Project on the vacant, relatively isolated Property. The costs of land assembly would be several times greater than the land cost of the property, making development of the Project at another location in the general vicinity of the Property economically impractical for the Agency and any private developer. In short, an alternative location for the Project would be prohibitively costly to assemble and would cause more severe environmental impacts than locating the Project on the Property. Consequently, consistent with Section 15125(d) (3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, an alternative location for the Project is found to be infeasible and has not been evaluated further in the 1996 SEIR or this Exhibit A. B. SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES AND REASONS FOR REJECTION Following is a summary of the proposed land use alternatives for the Property evaluated in the 1996 SEIR (including relevant alternatives from the 1992 EIR as incorporated by reference). The reasons for their selection as the most viable alternatives are addressed in Section VI.A above. The likely environmental impacts of each alternative and each alternative's ability to meet the Redevelopment and Planning Objectives are briefly summarized and are compared to the environmental impacts and potential of the Project to meet the Redevelopment and Planning Objectives. Each alternative is rejected as being infeasible because it fails to meet one or more of the Redevelopment Planning Objectives in a timely manner and/or would cause various adverse environmental or fiscal impacts that can be avoided through implementation of the Project. The reasons for rejection of the alternatives are summarized below and are supported by substantial evidence in the Record. 1. The No Project Alternative. The No Project Alternative means that the Property would remain vacant (unless the Agency permitted reuse for one of the other alternatives analyzed separately below). Potentially significant adverse impacts of the Project related to traffic, noise, air quality, construction impacts, hazardous materials, seismic safety, and cultural resources would generally not occur under the No Project Alternative since such impacts are generally associated with the development process. The vacant site would be less aesthetically appealing to some observers then a well designed Project. On balance, the No Project Alternative would have the fewest adverse environmental effects and would be considered the environmentally superior alternative among those evaluated in the 1992 EIR and the 1996 SEIR. Most important, the No Project Alternative would prevent the reuse of the largest and one of the most blighted parcels in the Project Area, thereby frustrating an essential purpose of the Redevelopment Plan and the Agency's Implementation Plan. For these reasons, the No Project Alterative fundamentally fails to achieve the underlying Redevelopment and Planning Goals of the Agency and the City. On this basis, the finding is made that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the No Project Alternative, and the No 1030Q6.P50 12/30/96 - 21 - Project Alternative is hereby rejected even though it might prove to be an environmentally superior alternative. 2. Alternative Land Uses on Property Evaluated in 1992 EIR (as Updated in 1996). Several alternative land uses for the Property were considered in the 1992 EIR. Two of the alternatives -- residential and public park -- are relevant to the current consideration of alternatives to the Project because they reflect two of the four basic alternatives considered in the ERA Alternatives Study, the Staff Reports on Alternatives, and the Agency's recent deliberations on appropriate uses for the Property. Following is a brief summary of those two alternatives that builds upon the material in the 1992 EIR. a. Residential. Although the traffic generation rates are lower for residential uses on the Property than for commercial, office or industrial uses like the proposed Project, residential uses generate traffic in both the morning and evening peak periods. Residential uses also place a higher demand on City services and generate limited City revenues. A residential use in the Property would not be compatible with the elevated noise levels generated from SR-17 traffic, and marketing a residential development on the site would be difficult, given its access through and proximity to the McGlincey industrial area. In summary, a residential use of the Property might be marginally superior to the Project from a traffic and air quality perspective, but would cause greater land use conflict and noise impacts than the Project. Overall, it is difficult to judge if the residential alternative would be superior or inferior to the Project from an environmental perspective. On the other hand, the residential alternative would clearly fail to meet Redevelopment and Planning Objectives related to land use compatibility. For these reasons, the finding is made that specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the residential alternative for the Property, and the residential alternative is hereby rejected. b. Public Park. During the public scoping meetings for the 1992 EIR, several comments from nearby residents suggested the City consider a park/open space use for the Property. In June 1990, the Cambrian Community Council also recommended that a park be considered for the Property as part of a mixed use project. A public park use would generate less traffic than the Project, and generally would produce more limited environmental effects related to air quality, construction impacts, hazardous materials impacts, cultural resource impacts, and seismic safety impacts. From this perspective, a public park use would be the environmentally superior alternative for the Property (other than the No Project Alternative). However, a public park use would be susceptible to the same negative land use compatibility effects as a residential use at the Property, i.e., traffic noise and air quality impacts from proximity to SR-17. In addition, the Property would have no direct access to a public street and is not centrally located to the remainder of the Union Avenue neighborhood. Drive-by surveillance of the site would be difficult. Lack of public visibility is often a factor leading to security and vandalism at parks. As noted in Section VI.A.3 above, the Property is challenged in meeting many of the General Plan Open Space Element criteria for suitable public park locations. Finally, a public park use alternative would cause severe negative financial impacts to the City and Agency as described in Section VI.A.3. Park development would require $5-7 million of City funds and approximately $350,000 in annual maintenance costs would further impact the General Fund, possibly precluding funding other competing capital projects, including lO30Q6.P5O 12/3o/96 - 2 2 - implementation of the Campbell Community Center Master Plan and future park acquisition and development in other areas of the City. The Agency would lose the ability to generate net sale proceeds to fund other activities in the McGlincey Lane area or to repay the City loan. In summary, while a public park use of the Property would prove environmentally superior to the Project, that alternative would fail to satisfy nearly all of the community's Redevelopment and Planning Objectives in the McGlincey Lane area. For these reasons, the finding is made that specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the public park alternative for the Property, and the public park alternative is hereby rejected. 3. The Commercial Recreation Alternative. A commercial recreation land use on the Property might consist of a golf practice range, a family recreation complex, a buffer area between the site and the mobile home park, and possible inclusion of the City corporation yard. The golf practice range is assumed to have 50 stations on two levels, and a club house/pro shop of about 2,000 square feet. The family recreation complex may include uses such as an arcade, restaurant, miniature golf course, go-kart track, batting cages, bumper rides, kiddie rides, and "soft play" area. Most of these activities would be outdoors. A commercial recreation alternative would generate approximately 5,800 vehicle trips daily (as opposed to an estimated 2,538 daily trips for the Project), but the trips would likely be distributed more evenly throughout a 24-hour period than the AM/PM peak distribution associated with the proposed Project. A substantial number of trips would be generated in the late afternoon and evening, when children are not in school. This alternative would also generate higher noise levels than the proposed Project, because the majority of activities would take place outdoors. Several activities, such as go-karts, bumper cars, and kiddie rides, could generate substantial noise levels which may impact the Paseo de Palomas mobile home park. Other variants of a commercial recreation alternative might have fewer high-noise impacts, but any commercial recreation variant involving outdoor activities is likely to have noise impacts that exceed those anticipated for the Project. Environmental effects of a commercial recreation alternative related to construction impact, hazardous materials, and cultural resource disturbance are likely to be similar to the anticipated impacts of the Project. A commercial recreation alternative would fail to meet fundamental Redevelopment and Planning Objectives related to land use compatibility problems with the adjacent mobile home park (see Section VI.A.3 above). One variant of the commercial recreation alternative considered by the Agency was the proposal in response to the development RFP submitted by a non- profit recreational entity called "Sports Mall". When other development proposals were rejected by the Agency Board, the "Sports Mall Task Force" was provided an opportunity to demonstrate the financial viability of their project. The Sports Mall proposal includes various indoor and outdooor sports activities on a lease or membership basis. An independent economic report commissioned by the Task Force indicated that financing for such a project was tenuous. It was determined that this kind of facility would likely serve as a regional rather than local resource, and no other public agencies were willing to step forward at that time to participate in financing such a project. The Task Force was not able to adequately demonstrate the financial viability of their project, and the proposed sports mall concept was not considered further. 1030Q6.P50 12/3o/96 - 2 3 - For these reasons, the finding is made that specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the commercial recreation alternative for the Property, and the commercial recreation alternative is hereby rejected. C. OVERALL FINDING REGARDING ALTERNATIVES After consideration of a reasonable range of identified alternatives to the Project, the Agency and the City Council find that none is as beneficial to the community as the proposed Project in terms of achieving the Redevelopment and Planning Objectives, and that because of each alternative's inability to achieve one or more of the Redevelopment and Planning Objectives, each identified alternative is rejected as being infeasible. 1o30Q6.PSO 12/3o/96 - 2 4 - City of Campbell Redevelopment Agency Winchester Drive*In Site l'ro~ect Supplemental Environmental Impact Repozt The loll·winS table ~ been developed in &ccordance with section 15'163 of the Call/omb F.n~lro~a~ C~.~tlity Act (CI~QA) G~de~m~, and cor~tal~ the mltis~tlon n'dasm~ no·rotary to develop the ~opos~.. resea:ch ~ dew. lopm~xt/lisht fndmtrial busineu pt~_k. This treble ~z:des o list of ~or~ wd the r~er~-~ t~ th~ a~rop~ Zrtvimmmm~ Impact Z~Imrt category, the impact, the timing of the m~flgatlo~ t~ C.~ty of Cmmpbel~ d~t respor~fbJe for the f0~plementatfon of the ndtlgatlorx, the fhte ~he mltlb~ntlon b monitored &nd/or completed, and the irdtials of the individual that was responsible for mordtoflr~ and/or ensuring compl~on of the approprhte n'dtl~flon. FToJect comtmctiorx will be phsed .&nd the t~n~g of ~ti~at~on implementation ~ be deterrrdned durlM the project reivew end public review pr·ten ~ as presc~ in tl~ project conditions o~ sppro~ 1. IlVfl'ACT IM3'ACT* SEnt Addittordl ~fic at the intersections of Union Ave'~ue/McC:;lir~¥Iane nnd ~/Urdon Avenues. · The al:~licant shall install · ~llowin~ tr&ffic SlL'Tdl at this con~letionof tntersec~or~ tnrJudi~ mn [ the project end Public Works DATF./ · Applicant shall remow thru IFollowin~ · IPUbXicWm'b/ lo 71xe .pp~Icnnt 8haJl restrlpe IPollowin~ IPubncWorks/ I I urdon Avenue to provide mx ! b pmlectmd I I Remo~! o," three ncLeCeS on r w~l impact Avenue/ the traffic circulation The City will provide tl~ Cm'tn~ Avneue/ eompletion of tr'&ffic from Curtn~ Av~ue · The eppllc&nt sJdll tnstsll [Followln~ the leg a.~ · ~ '~0 ~ TURN" on L~e noflh leg of the ~ Avenue/ t,tne lnte:MeRon. Remove west lep of the interuetion. F'roN~le am to the sim west o! Westddster Drive ~,corda~ ~mo sh]] be ]~a~~ provided to the gte via of C~Lstich LtM I~ it Is Works Works Publi~ Works Public Works Publlc Worb NOISE noise levels. Short term temporary durt~ a~strvcti~ Applfcnnt shall restrlpe . tl~ northbound appronch of ~ intersectloti and ndd a new exclusive right-turn lane. Applicant sJdI! pay · proportional traffic tmpact * AppUcant shah eomply Fouo .w~ e~u PubUc Works Public Works d~ in Section 3.~ of the Suplementtl final Pub~ W°rks/ AppUetnt/proJect ~ comply with all noise perfomm~ sta.ndL, ds ns descfllx~ in Section ~ 9 _~ of the Suplen'mntal Report. Am QUAI.r~ ~ monodde ¢C0) Unfon/Campbell level of ~ thresholds and there a~e no mitigation measures available to the project that will reduce this impact below k-ve of WATEP, SUPPLY Constru~n oi~ water supply improvements may result in ~onstruction- ~ted nOrM, dust and traffic diversion. sppropri~t~ Jurisdiction. C...~mpbell ~rd/or S~a k~ to reduc~ co~lrKgon ml~t~d iml~cts. l~bll~ Wor~s/ itDA 4 ,A,13t QUAtrrY Constructfcm activities will ere. ate adcUtJonal L KAZARDOUS L. The use, .torage, and transport of hazardous materi&ls in the project leah, or accidents tnvolv~A these 1Tdtertals. construction activity. t. ev~t of' a major Fnncfsco Bey ~gfor~ tetumts dm~ eonxply · e l,.L~doxu Materhls StoraBe Ord~Mzun and Tcude · I/' cultur~ ~ ~ encountered dur~ eon.~uctlon, aXl developnu~ cease ¥. A emLqed &Tcheolo~Lst ~ be contacted and be present at all ~bsequent exavatic~ implement All applicable re~u~ns relevant to 5 At the tkne of ex~avaUon and Works PuMIc Works/ RDA Instelhfion o( storm drilna~e hcilifles with -Vl tpplictble 1%,uhtlord rehted to mf~i~tfon o; nobe, dust nd traffic control messures. 6 EXHIBIT "B" STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS IN SUPPORT OF PLANNING APPROVALS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE FORMER WINCHESTER DRIVE-IN SITE I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND A. Purpose. This Exhibit B sets forth the Statement of Overriding Considerations the City Council (The "City Council") of the City of Campbell (the "City") in support of the approval by the City Council, of a Planned Development Permit, General Plan Amendment and Vested Tentative Subdivision Map (the "Planning Approvals") for development of approximately 330,000 square foot high-end research and development/business park and associated on-and-off-site improvements (the "Project") by WTA Campbell Technology Park, LLC (the "Developer") pursuant to a Disposition and Development Agreement ("DDA") previously approved by the City Council and Campbell Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency"). This Statement of Overriding Considerations is made in compliance with the California Environmental Act ("CEQA", Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., with particular reference to Sections 15092 and 15093). B. The Project. The DDA provides for the sale by the Agency to the Developer, upon specified terms and conditions, of the approximately 23.5 acre former Winchester Drive-In Site (the "Property") located in McGlincey Lane industrial area portion of the Central Campbell Redevelopment Project Area. The sale is conditioned upon procurement by the Developer of the Planning Approvals. The DDA further provides for the Developer to develop the Project on the Property in accordance with any Planning Approvals that may be obtained and with the Second Amended and Restated Central Campbell Redevelopment Plan (the "Redevelopment Plan"). The Property has been vacant for the past 14 years despite several private sector efforts to cause its redevelopment. It is the largest and one of the most blighted parcels in the Project Area. The Agency purchased the Property in 1994 so that it could control the Property's timely redevelopment in furtherance of the goals and objectives of the Redevelopment Plan. Such timely redevelopment is viewed by the Agency as the lynch- pin to overall redevelopment of the McGlincey Lane portion of the Project Area, and is a critical element of the Agency's five-year Implementation Plan (defined below). C. The CEQA Process. The Agency and the City have caused preparation of a supplemental environmental impact report (SCH# 96072018) (the "1996 SEIR") pursuant to CEQA to evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed Project and the DDA. The 1996 SEIR builds upon a 1992 environmental impact report (SCH# 91053015) (the "1992 EIR") that evaluated, among other matters, a prior proposed development of the Property. Exhibit B - Statement of Overriding Considerations (Winchester Drive-In Site) Page 2 By concurrent resolution of January 7, 1997 (the "1996 SEIR Resolution"), the Agency and the City Council certified the 1996 SEIR and made findings regarding the impacts of the Project in accordance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. The 1996 SEIR Resolution identified one unavoidable potentially significant environmental impact of the Project as follows: The increase in concentrations of carbon monoxide at the Camden/Curtner and Union/Campbell intersections as a result of anticipated Project-related traffic would represent a significant unmitigated air quality impact because 1-hour and 8- hour carbon monoxide exceedances would become worse under Project conditions. Accordingly, the City Council is adopting this Statement of Overriding Considerations. II. THE RECORD The record (the "Record") of the City Council relating to the Project and this Statement of Overriding Considerations includes: A. The 1996 SEIR; B. The 1992 EIR; C. Concurrent City Council and Agency Resolution Nos. 8322 and 1992-19, dated June 2, 1992, regarding the 1992 EIR; D. The DDA; E. The 1996 SEIR Resolution; F. The summary of the DDA prepared by Agency staff in December 1996 pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33433 (the "Section 33433 Summary"). G. Detailed Evaluation of Winchester Drive-In Site Alternatives, prepared for the Agency by Economic Research Associates, dated February, 1995 (the "ERA Alternatives Study"); H. Staff memoranda to the Agency Board dated February 20, 1996, and April 16, 1996, discussing land use alternatives and developer selection for the Property (the "Staff Reports on Alternatives"). I. The staff report accompanying this Resolution, the 1996 SEIR and the DDA dated January 7, 1997 (the "DDA Staff Report"); J. The Second Amended and Restated Central Campbell Redevelopment Plan (The "Redevelopment Plan"); K. The March 1992 Report to City Council on the Redevelopment Plan, and supplements thereto including the Report on Existing Conditions (the "Report to Council"); Exhibit B - Statement of Overriding Considerations (Winchester Drive-In Site) Page 3 L. The City of Campbell Redevelopment Agency AB 1290 Implementation Plan and AB 315 Affordable Housing Production Plan for the Central Campbell Redevelopment Project Area, adopted by the Agency on November 15, 1994, pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33490 (the "Implementation Plan"). M. Documentary and oral evidence received by the Planning Commission, the Agency and the City Council during public hearings and meetings on the Project, the 1996 SEIR and the Planning Approvals; N. The staff report on the Planning Approvals and the accompanying resolutions, findings, conditions and related documents; and O. Matters of common knowledge to the Agency and the City Council which they have considered, such as the City of Campbell General Plan (the "General Plan"), and prior resolutions and ordinances of the Agency and the City. III. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The City Council has fully considered the discussion and analysis in the Record regarding the environmental impacts and socioeconomic effects of the Project. The City Council finds that the approval of the DDA and the implementation of the project subject to the granting of the discretionary Planning Approvals will provide significant economic, social and other benefits of the Project which override and outweigh the unavoidable significant air quality impact identified in the 1996 SEIR Resolution. The City Council further finds that the alternatives to the Project identified in the 1992 EIR, the 1996 SEIR and the 1996 SEIR Resolution are infeasible for the reasons stated therein and because such alternatives would limit the economic, social and other benefits that will be provided by the Project. Following are the specific Project benefits upon which these findings and statement of overriding considerations are based: A. Elimination of Blight on the Property. The City Council finds that implementation pursuant to the granting of discretionary Planning Approvals will eliminate blight on the Property, thereby accomplishing a central purpose and achieving a primary benefit of the Redevelopment Plan. The Property is the largest unutilized parcel in the Project Area and, consequently, constitutes one of its most blighted properties. The Property has remained unused for 14 years despite several private sector redevelopment efforts. As summarized in the 1992 Report to Council: Exhibit B - Statement of Overriding Considerations (Winchester Drive-In Site) Page 4 "Although a number of properties suffer from adverse conditions cited above, the site of the former Winchester Drive-In Theater provides the single most significant example of economic dislocation, deterioration, and disuse within the Expansion Area. This 24-acre site has abandoned, partially demolished buildings; broken projection screens; and hazardous wastes. The property also lacks satisfactory access to public streets. Repeated efforts to develop the site have failed due, in part, to the extraordinary costs associated with removing hazardous wastes and improving accessibility. Private redevelopment of this site, without public assistance in the form of redevelopment, will be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve." (1992 Report to Council, pages 111-5 and III-6.) The Agency and City Council amended the Redevelopment Plan in 1992 in substantial part to include the Drive-In site and the remainder of the McGlincey Lane industrial area in the Project Area, so that redevelopment resources could be focused on revitalizing the Property. A basic objective of the Redevelopment Plan states that: "The Agency will facilitate economic revitalization in the McGlincey Lane area by: . . . providing assistance to a developer or developers, as necessary, in developing the former Winchester Drive-In site in a manner consistent with the General Plan..." (Redevelopment Plan, page 9). Likewise, the Agency's five-year Implementation Plan describes the benefit of redeveloping the Property as follows: "The Winchester Drive-In Site has sat vacant for over 10 years. It is difficult to develop because of the poor access to the site, substandard infrastructure to serve it and the surrounding area, and the general poor condition of the surrounding area. Its development will eliminate a large, underutilized piece of property and should prompt improvement of surrounding properties." (Implementation Plan, page 27.) To accomplish redevelopment of the Property, the Agency gained site control in 1994, arranged for the necessary hazardous materials remediation, and through the DDA will pay for storm drain improvements that will facilitate revitalization of the Property and the surrounding McGlincey Lane industrial area. Further, the Agency's intention to upgrade Cristich Lane has helped to create the development environment in which the Developer is prepared to purchase the Property for $8 million and to build the Project. The Project itself will be one of the highest quality industrial parks in the City and region, and will eliminate the major blighting influence described above. Exhibit B - Statement of Overriding Considerations (Winchester Drive-In Site) Page 5 B. Elimination of Blight in Remaining Project Area. The City Council finds that implementation of the Project subject to the granting of the discretionary Planning Approvals will eliminate blight in the adjacent McGlincey Lane portion of the Project Area, thereby achieving related purposes and benefits of the Redevelopment Plan. As noted in the Implementation Plan, the McGlincey Lane area: "... was brought into the redevelopment project area in 1992 in order to address a host of adverse conditions in the area including dilapidated buildings, substandard infrastructure, and a number of factors inhibiting proper land utilization and development." (Implementation Plan, page 27; see also 1992 Report to Council, Section III and accompanying Report on Existing Conditions.) Several of the redevelopment objectives and programs set forth in the Redevelopment Plan and the Agency's Implementation Plan relate to revitalization of the McGlincey Lane area through Agency provision of necessary street and public improvements and other assistance to property owners (see Redevelopment Plan, Part IV.B and Implementation Plan, pages 27-28). Development of the project pursuant to the granting of the necessary Planning Approvals will provide an essential catalyst to elimination of blight and revitalization of the McGlincey Lane area in five direct ways. First, the Project will constitute a "flagship" development for the area, making clear the area's locational potential for quality industrial uses. Second, the new businesses and employees in the Project will be a source of customers for other businesses in the McGlincey Lane area and the larger Campbell community. Third, through the DDA and the recent sale of two small parcels acquired by the Agency in conjunction with the Property, the Agency will generate approximately $3.8 million dollars of net sale proceeds (after taking into account acquisition cots, carrying costs, and costs of storm drain infrastructure to be paid by the Agency through the DDA). The net sale proceeds will provide the Agency with a vital source of immediate cash that can be reinvested in the McGlincey Lane area and overall Project Area to alleviate the infrastructure and other blighting conditions that have impaired revitalization. Such reinvestment may include funds for upgrading Cristich Lane and providing business location and expansion assistance, in addition to the Agency storm drain improvements that will be funded directly through the DDA (see Staff Reports on Alternatives; the DDA Staff Report; and the 1996 SEIR Resolution, Exhibit A, Section VII.A.3). Exhibit B - Statement of Overriding Considerations (Winchester Drive-In Site) Page 6 Fourth, by putting the Property back on the tax rolls and causing development of approximately 330,000 square feet of quality industrial facilities, the Project will annually generate approximately $50,000 of tax increment revenue for affordable housing programs and $30,000 of tax increment revenue for other activities that will further the Agency's redevelopment program for the Project Area (see January 7, 1997, Staff Report for DDA). Finally, through the DDA and Planning Approvals, the Developer will be required to provide a range of additional intersection and utility improvements that will benefit the entire McGlincey Lane Industrial Area. (see Exhibit F of the DDA and the 1996 SEIR Resolution, Exhibit A and Conditions of Approval for the Planned Development Permit). C. Economic Revitalization of the Project Area. The Agency and the City Council find that approval of the Planning Approvals and implementation of the Project will significantly strengthen the economic base of the Project Area, offer employment opportunities to qualified local residents, generate additional spending power within Campbell to the benefit of existing and new Campbell businesses, and contribute to the appropriate balance between jobs and housing in Campbell. At buildout, the Project is expected to generate 750 new full-time employees at one or more new businesses. The jobs and businesses are expected to be at the high-end of industrial uses, thereby producing high incomes for employees and enhancing the reputation of Campbell as a place to do business. These benefits will help to fulfill economic revitalization objectives of the Redevelopment Plan (see Section IV.B.4 of the Redevelopment Plan) and the Agency's Implementation Plan, which states: "Attracting and retaining key businesses is important to the success of the redevelopment project area, as well as to the City as a whole. In order to redevelop properties and eliminate blighting conditions, the area must have a strong and successful business presence in order to attract new development." (Implementation Plan, page 28.) RESOLUTION NO 3129 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING AN AMENDMENT OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF 19.58 ACRES FROM COMMERCIAL DESTINATION TO INDUSTRIAL TO ALLOW A RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT BUSINESS PARK, AND CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF FOUR ACRES FROM COMMERICAL DESTINATION TO PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC FOR USE AS PUBLIC OPEN SPACE ON THE FORMER WINCHESTER DRIVE-IN SITE. FILE NO. GP 96-02. WHEREAS, the proposed land use change of 19.58 acres in the central to northern portion of the former Winchester Drive-In Theater site from Commercial Destination to Industrial continues a land use pattern consistent with surrounding land development and compatible with adjacent uses; and WHEREAS, the residents of the adjacent mobile home park bordering the proposed project to the northeast expressed a preference for this kind of project due to the conditions of operation and business hours of a research and development business park and the site design that incorporates landscape buffer and site layout that is sensitive to the mobile home park and its desire to maintain quality of life; and WHEREAS, the historical land use designation of the site was Industrial for approximately 25 years prior to its designation to Commercial Destination and reverting it back to Industrial is consistent with the policies of the Circulation Element of the General Plan in that expected traffic patterns and intensity are within capacity of surface streets in the area and project specific traffic mitigation will minimize traffic impacts. RESOLVED that the proposed General Plan land use change of 19.58 acres in the central to northem portion of the former Winchester Drive-In site fi.om Commercial Destination to Industrial, continues a land use pattern which is consistent with the predominant existing and planned land uses surrounding the area; and FURTHER RESOLVED that the Commercial designation on this site does not appear viable in that fi.eeway access was determined infeasible by Cal-Trans, and major retailers have not found the site desirable without freeway access. FURTHER RESOLVED that the proposed application under Planned Development Permit No. PD-96 -06 is consistent with the Development Policies in the General Plan related to the former Winchester Drive-In site in that floor area ratio of the proposed development is .40 or less, that a detailed traffic analysis was completed and appropriate mitigation will be implemented, appropriate design features are incorporated to minimize noise impacts such as sound walls and locating loading docks away from residential areas, and landscaping will be provided throughout parking areas and used effectively to filter views of building mass and to ensure privacy for adjacent residential uses; and Planning Commission Resolution No. 3129 Land Use Element Page 2 FURTHER RESOLVED that the proposed land use change is consistent with the Central Campbell Redevelopment Plan in that it furthers the stated goals and objectives of the Plan of facilitating redevelopment of the McGlincey Lane area of the Project Area through redevelopment of the largest remaining vacant parcel in the City of Campbell which has remained fallow for 15 years due to poor access, inadequate infrastructure and the blighted conditions of the area; and FURTHER RESOLVED that the disposition of the 19.58 acres of the former Drive-In site for a 280,000 square foot research and development business park is consistent with the General Plan pursuant to Government Code Section 65402 provided that the disposition is for development in accordance with the General Plan Amendment recommended by this resolution and with other planning approvals; and FURTHER RESOLVED that the proposed General Plan land use change of four acres along the southern portion of the former Drive-In site, from Commercial Destination to Public/Semi- Public, for the purpose of creating a public open space area is consistent with the Open Space Element of the General Plan in that the Open Space Element states that development of open space sites in neighborhoods which are deficient in open space acreage is a high priority of the City. The Open Space Element further identifies the Union Avenue area (of which the McGlincey Lane area is part) as having a high need for neighborhood parks. While the site may not meet all the criteria of the General Plan for a neighborhood park such as poor proximity to residential, not highly visible and poor access, the opportunities for developing open space in this area are limited due to land availability and costs and the proposed public open space amenity would benefit an area that currently lacks adequate open space; and FURTHER RESOLVED that a park or public open space area that does not meet all the Open Space Element criteria can still provide public benefits and that it is not inconsistent with the Open Space Element to set aside this acreage for public park or open space use; and FURTHER RESOLVED that the Open Space element goal of additional park acreage does not require that a larger portion of the Property be set aside for a park or open space because: 1) the Property's failure to fully satisfy the criteria for a park becomes more significant and more acute if a larger portion is set aside; 2) the main demand in the area is for a neighborhood-size (4- to 7- acre) park; and 3) a larger park or open space at the Property would absorb greater City resources, and would interfere with reaching the City's overall park goals elsewhere and at potentially more ideal sites which may be consistent with the acquisition criteria contained in the Open Space Element; and Planning Commission Resolution No. 3129 Land Use Element Page 3 FURTHER RESOLVED that setting aside additional land for a larger park would require more than the modest reduction now proposed for commercial development of the Property, would disrupt and potentially abort the several-year process which the City and Redevelopment Agency have followed to attempt to realize the City's economic and redevelopment goals using the Property and would risk depriving the City and Agency of the funds which development of the Property will provide to meet open space, redevelopment and other City goals. FURTHER RESOLVED that, while failure to identify the Property as a park site in implementation planning under the Open Space element reflects that it is not an ideal park site, it is nonetheless appropriate to set a small portion (four acres) aside for park or open space use given that: 1) the public has shown interest in some park or open space use at the Property; 2) the City has been unable to date to acquire and develop a park or open space serving the Union Avenue area at any previously identified site; and 3) the alternatives-- either to postpone development of the Property and realization of other City goals pending further review of open space sites or to permit commercial development of the entire Property and probably foreclose open space use are less desirable; and FURTHER RESOLVED that, balancing the goals of the City and the General Plan, setting aside four acres for park or open space use is the best way overall to realize the City's various objectives; and FURTHER RESOLVED that the proposed General Plan land use change is consistent with the Housing Element in that Campbell's Housing Element is certified by the State and the impacts of Industrial and Open Space are likely to be minimal as the area is currently designated for non- residential. Additionally, this area is not desirable for residential given its proximity to Highway 17 and the surrounding industrial uses in the area make it difficult to create a desirable living environment; and The impact of development on housing will not be significant in that there has not been any new industry in Campbell over the last five years and during that time flame the City has approved 495 dwelling units and the City continues to maintain a strong jobs/housing balance; and FURTHER RESOLVED that the proposed General Plan land use change is consistent with the Noise Element of the General Plan in that the proposed project will create less noise than alternative land uses such as Commercial Destination or Commercial Recreation given that activities are confined indoors, noise mitigation has been incorporated into the site design and hours of operation are consistent with normal business hours. Noise impacts should be further considered during planning for use of the designated open space. This is consistent with goals and objectives identified in the Noise Element. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3129 Land Use Element Page 4 THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission finds that the proposed General Plan land use change of designating 19.58 acres to Industrial and four acres Public/Semi-Public is on balance consistent with the General Plan given the historical use and designation of this property over the years and the surrounding land, and the identified need for neighborhood size park space on the east side of the City. RECOMMENDATION OF PLANNING COMMIS$IQN: Passed and adopted this 28th day of October, 1997 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: Gibbons, Kearns, Lowe, Meyer-Kennedy Jones Lindstrom None APPROVED BY: Susan A. Keams, Chairperson ATTEST: Steven Piasecki, Secretary j:\iandus O~neral Plan Amendment for approximately 20 nares from Commercial to lndu.trl.l. -/! 635 Weetoheoter Drive · 67! MoO]inoe), Lane PROJECT SITE OP 96-021PD 96-061T5 97-01 97-05 General Plan Amendment rot 4 seres trom Commercial to Publlel Semi-Public. NO 8P.,ALE PROJECT BITE EXHIBIT A ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, RECOMMENDATION OF MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING PROGRAM, AND FINDING OF FACTS FOR THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT OF THE WINCHESTER DRIVE-IN SITE AND THE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ADDENDUM PREPARED IN CONNECTION THEREWITH GENERAL INFORMATION I030~6.P5O 12/30~6 A. Project Description. On January 7, 1997 the City Council/Agency certified the SEIR and authorized execution of the Original DDA. The original proposal examined by the 1996 SEIR consisted of a 330,000 square foot research and development/light industrial business park on 23.58 acres (the "Original Project"). On June 17, 1997 the City Council, upon recommendation of the Planning Commission requested WTA Campbell Technology Park (the "Developer") to present redesign of the Original Project to accommodate a four acre park or open space. The revised project (the "Project") under consideration by the City Council is the proposed sale and land use change of 19.58 acres from "Commercial" to "Industrial" for the development of an approximately 280,000 square foot research and development business park, and the proposed land use designation change of four acres from "Commercial" to "Public/Semi-Public" for use as public open space on the former Winchester Drive-In Site (the "Property") within the Central Campbell Redevelopment Project Area (the "Project Area") in the City of Campbell, California (the "City"). The Revised Project building square footage will consist of three, two story buildings ranging in size from 60,000 square feet to 100,000 square feet, and a 40,000 square foot single story building. The proposed site plan of the Project is contained in the Addendum to the 1996 SEIR. As a result in the change in project description, the Agency and the Developer have agreed to a First Amended and Restated Disposition and Development Agreement (the "DDA") for the purpose of reducing the size of the Property to be acquired from 23.58 acres to 19.58 acres (the "Site") to accommodate a four acre public open space, to provide a more detailed description of the improvements to be developed on the Site, to make related adjustments to the purchase price, and to address specific circumstances that have changed since execution of the Original DDA; As was the case under the Original Project, the Project will require removal of the deteriorated asphalt paving currently on the Property, and site preparation activities such as minor excavation, grading, and possible importation of engineered fill. Off- site improvements will include extension of water and utilities to the Property, Bo 1030Q6.P5O 12~30/96 traffic mitigation improvements to affected intersections in the area, access street improvements and the extension of storm drain facilities across the Property. Background; The 1992 EIR. The Property has been vacant for the past 15 years, and has been under various ownerships. In 1984, Caz Development was approved to construct a 420,000 square foot light industrial project. However the project was never built. In 1991, Western Federal Savings (then the owner of the Property) submitted a Planned Development permit application (PD91- 04) to the City to construct a 245,000 square foot destination retail center on the Property. At the same time, the Agency initiated an amendment to the Central Campbell Redevelopment Plan to allow for the addition of the McGlincey Lane Expansion Area, within which the Property is located, to the Project Area. The PD permit application for the Property and the redevelopmem area expansion were evaluated together under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., "CEQA") in an EIR during 1991-92 (SCH#91053013) (the "1992 EIR"). The 1992 EIR consists of a Draft EIR dated September 1991 (SCHg91053013) (the "1992 Draft EIR"), a Final EIR dated March 1992 (containing responses to comments received on the Draft EIR) (the "1992 Final EIR"), and Exhibit A to the 1992 Resolution (described below) (containing certain text additions to the foregoing documents). The 1992 EIR evaluated the then-proposed destination retail development of the Property at a project level of detail and evaluated the other projects proposed to be undertaken in the McGlincey Lane Expansion Area at a program level of detail. The 1992 EIR was certified by the City Council and Agency in a concurrent resolution on June 2, 1992 (Resolution Nos. 8322 and 1992-19, respectively) (the "1992 Resolution"). Findings were contained in the 1992 Resolution in accordance with CEQA, including a Statement of Overriding Considerations for impacts pertaining to regional air quality. The destination retail project for the Property evaluated in the 1992 EIR was not developed. The Agency purchased the Property in April 1994. Shortly thereafter, the Agency began a process to determine the optimum land use for the Property. In June 1994, a series of public meetings were held to receive early input into the decision making process. From those meetings a variety of ideas for the Property were obtained, including light industrial, commercial recreation, non-profit recreation, and other uses. These potential uses were then evaluated by an economic consulting fu'm, Economics Research Associates, to determine the financial feasibility of these uses. In August 1995, the Agency distributed a Request for Proposals (RFP) package to developers, corporations, or other parties that might be interested in purchasing and developing all or a portion of the Property. The Agency received eight proposals from developers. -2- After evaluation of the proposals, the Agency entered into an exclusive negotiating rights agreement with the Developer. In December 1996, Agency staff concluded negotiations with Developer on the proposed terms of a disposition and development agreement (a "DDA") which was presented for consideration by the Agency and City Council at a duly noticed public hearing on January 7, 1997. The 1996 SEIR and Addendum. The Original Project as proposed by the Developer differed in land use from the destination retail project that was proposed and evaluated in the 1992 EIR in terms of impacts related to traffic/circulation/parking, noise, air quality following buildout, land use, water supply, storm drainage, aesthetics, and alternatives. However, much of the information and analysis contained in the 1992 EIR remained valid for the Original Project and remains valid for the Project, particularly with regard to impacts involving air quality during construction, hazardous materials, cultural resources, geology, drainage/flooding, biological resources, cumulative impacts, and growth inducing impacts. Under these circumstances, the City Council determined that a Supplemental EIR (the "1996 SEIR") was required, in accordance with Section 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines (defined below), to build upon the relevant aspects of the 1992 EIR and address the different potential environmental impacts that may result from the change in the nature of the Original Project compared to the project that was evaluated in the 1992 EIR. The determination to prepare the 1996 SEIR was also consistent with the requirements of the 1992 Resolution calling for performance of further appropriate environmental analysis when a specific project proposal for the Property was presented for Planning Commission and City Council consideration. The 1997 Addendum to the 1996 SEIR was prepared to address the changes between the Original Project and the Project. The changes do not lead to new, more severe potential environmental effects in that there is a reduction of 50,000 square feet in industrial building area being replaced with a four acre public open space area. There have been no substantial changes in circumstances, or new information made available relevant to the Project which lead to new, more severe environmental effects. No new, different or newly feasible mitigation measures have been identified which are applicable to the Project. The 1996 SEIR incorporates by reference the 1992 EIR. The 1996 SEIR consists of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report dated October 1996 (SCH#96082018) (the "Draft 1996 SEIR") and a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report dated December 1996 (the "Final 1996 SEIR") (containing responses to comments on, and making certain revisions to, the Draft 1996 SEIR), as more fully described below. 1030Q6.P50 12/30/96 -3- The 1996 SEIR was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act CCEQA"), the State CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq., with particular reference to Section 15163), and the City's and Agency's Local CEQA Implementation Guidelines. CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines authorize preparation of a supplement to an EIR when certain conditions are present, and when limited additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation. A supplement to an EIR must be given the same kind of notice and review as is given to an initial EIR. To that end, the Agency issued a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") for the Draft 1996 SEIR to the State Clearinghouse and others on August 7, 1996. The required 30-day notice period for the NOP ended on September 6, 1996. In addition, the Agency/City conducted a public scoping meeting for the Project on July 24, 1996. The Draft 1996 SEIR was circulated from October 2 to November 16, 1996 to various Federal, State, and local agencies for their review and comment. The Draft 1996 SEIR was also provided to the Campbell Library, and was made available to members of the general public. A public meeting on the Draft 1996 SEIR was held on October 29, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. at the Campbell City Hall Council Chambers. Approximately 10 members of the public were in attendance at the workshop. The Final 1996 SEIR was made available to the public and distributed to the public agencies that commented on the Draft 1996 SEIR on December 18, 1996. The Final 1996 SEIR contains responses to 12 letters received during the Draft 1996 SEIR comment period and to comments made at the October 29, 1996 public workshop on the Draft 1996 SEIR. The Final 1996 SEIR also contains text revisions to the Draft 1996 SEIR made a result of responding to the comments received. The 1996 SEIR (with the 1992 EIR as a reference) came before the Agency and the City Council on January 7, 1997 at a duly noticed joint public hearing, at which time the Agency and City Council heard oral testimony and received written communications. The City Council and Agency acting jointly certified the 1996 SEIR as complete and adequate. The 1997 Addendum has been prepared in cOmpliance with Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines to address the changes from the Original Project to the Project together with any relevant changes in circumstances, new information or 103OQ6.PS0 12/30/96 -4- potential new mitigation measures. While CEQA does not require a public review period for an Addendum, public notice of its availability for public review was provided beginning October 17, 1997, ten days before the Planning Commission public hearing to consider the Project, and 30 days prior to the City Council public hearing to consider the Project. Use of 1996 SEIR and Addendum; Imposition of Mitigation Measures. Two primary sets of local discretionary approvals are required before the Project may be developed. The Planning Approvals constitute the first set of local discretionary approvals necessary to develop the Project. The Planning Approvals include a proposed General Plan amendment, a Planned Development Permit, approval of a vesting tentative map, and Site and Architectural approval. The Planning Commission considered the Project at a duly noticed public hearing on October 28, 1997 and recommended certification of the 1996 SEIR and the Addendum as adequate and complete in serving as the CEQA document for the Project and recommended to the City Council making the statement of overriding considerations. The second set of approvals consists of approval by the Agency, and consent by the City Council (with specified f'mdings under the Community Redevelopment Law), of the DDA. The DDA sets forth the terms and conditions under which the Agency will sell the property to the Developer. A primary condition to the sale of the property is that the Developer must first obtain the Planning Approvals. Both the Planning Approvals and approval of the DDA is scheduled for consideration at duly noticed public hearings on November 18, 1997. In Section IV of Exhibit A of Concurrent Resolution 1997-1 and 9181, the City Council and Agency adopted specified mitigation measures to address potentially significant environmental impacts of the Original Project that still apply to the Project. Those mitigation measures are reaffu'med by this resolution and incorporated herein. No new or newly feasible mitigation measures have been identified by the Addendum or the Commission. In particular, no new or newly feasible mitigation measures have been identified with respect to carbon monoxide emissions, the one unavoidable potentially significant environmental impact of the project. If the City Council approves the Planning Approvals in their policy discretion, these adopted mitigation measures will be imposed through conditions of the Planning Approvals. Imposition of EIR mitigation measures through conditions of land use approval is the standard procedure in Campbell, and most localities, for imposing mitigation measures related to specific projects. 1030Q6.PS0 12/30/96 Nothing in this Exhibit A or the Resolution to which it is attached will affect the City Council's discretion, as applicable, in taking action on the Planning Approvals, or in imposing conditions of approval in addition to the mitigation measures adopted below. II. OVERALL FINDINGS Before the Agency and City Council may act upon the discretionary approvals described in Section I.D above, CEQA mandates that the Agency and City Council consider the record and make certain findings required by Public Resources Code Sections 21081 and 21081(a) and Sections 15091, 15092 and 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The 1996 SEIR (which incorporates the 1992 EIR) and as amended by the 1997 Addendum, identifies potentially significant impacts on the environment which are likely to result from development of the Project. Based on the following findings as to each such impact, the 1996 SEIR concludes that changes or alterations have been adopted and will be incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen all identified potentially significant environmental impacts except for the local air quality impact identified in Section III. and in Section IV below. Further, as required by Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, a monitoring program is adopted for the mitigation measures stated in and required by this Exhibit A. The purposes of the findings contained in Exhibits A and B -include: (1) certifying the 1996 SEIR including the 1997 Addendum prepared for the discretionary approvals described in Section I.D above; (2) briefly describing and summarizing the potentially significant environmental impacts of the Project; (3) describing mitigation measures for, and alternatives to, the Project; (4) making a statement of overriding considerations for the one unavoidable, unmitigated impact and (5) presenting the Agency's and the City's findings as to the impacts of the Project after adoption or rejection of the mitigation measures and alternatives. In addition, Section IV of Exhibit A to the Concurrent Resolution of the City Council and the Agency, Resolution Nos. 9181 and 1997-1 respectively adopts mitigation measures for certain other environmental impacts that were addressed in the 1996 SEIR (including the 1992 EIR incorporated by reference), but determined not to be potentially significant adverse environmental impacts. The description of impacts contained in this Exhibit A is intended as a summary only. The 1996 SEIR, the documents which it incorporates (including the 1992 EIR) and the 1997 Addendum, describe these impacts in detail. The City Council and Agency certify that the 1996 SEIR with the 1997 Addendum has been completed in compliance with CEQA and that it was presented to, and reviewed and considered by, the Planning Commission prior to acting on the discretionary approvals related to the Project. In so certifying, the City Council and Agency recognizes that there may be "differences" among and between the information and -6- ~o3oQ6.pso 12/30/96 I/I. opinions offered in the documents and testimony that make up the record related to the City Council and Agency actions. Therefore, by these findings (including Exhibit A of Resolutions Nos. 9181 and 1997-1 by reference), the City Council and Agency acknowledge and certify the clarifications and/or modifications of the 1996 SEIR, the 1997 Addendum, as set forth in these findings, and determines that these findings shall control and that the 1996 SEIR shall be deemed to be adequate subject to the determinations reached by the City Council and Agency in these findings, which are based on the substantial evidence in the record. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT On January 7, 1997 the City Council and Agency adopted Resolution Nos. 9181 and 1997-1 (the "Prior Findings") certifying the 1996 SEIR as complete and adequate for the Original Project under the Original DDA. In compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) and Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Council and Agency in adopting the Prior Findings made the appropriate findings regarding potentially significant environmental impacts related to the Original Project as identified in the 1996 SEIR, including the potentially significant impacts identified in the 1992 EIR that have been found to remain relevant to the Original Project and the Project. The City Council and Agency reaffh'ms the analysis and findings made based on substantial evidence in the record including the 1992 EIR, 1996 SEIR and the Addendum because the Addendum identifies no new or more potentially significant environmental impacts, and no additional available mitigation measures, the Prior Findings and Mitigation Monitoring Program are hereby incorporated by reference. For each identified potentially significant impact, the Prior Findings: 1) summarizes the impact, 2) describes and adopts applicable mitigation measures for the impact, 3) adopts a monitoring program for the adopted mitigation measures in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, and 4) makes one of the findings required by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) and Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The City Council and Agency recognizes that in certain respects the Project contemplated under the DDA may have impacts less than those of the Original Project contemplated under the Original DDA as described in the Prior Findings. In particular, the Project will contain only 280,000 square feet of building space, not 330,000 square feet as noted in Section C.2.d of the Prior Findings. The Project will increase critical movement traffic volumes at the Camden/Union intersection less than the 1.35 percent as noted in Section A.2.a of the Prior Findings. Nonetheless, despite any reduction in impacts, the Commission recommends implementation of all mitigation measures described in the Prior Findings, and therefore reaffh"ms the Prior Findings on these -7- ! 030Qt.P'30 12/30/96 IVe Ve i030Q6.PSO 12/30/96 points as well. UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Based on the analysis contained in the 1996 SEIR (including the 1992 EIR), with the Addendum and Section HI of this Exhibit A, the following unavoidable significant adverse impact of approval and implementation of the Project is identified: The increase in concentrations of carbon monoxide at the Camden/Curtner and Union/Campbell intersections as a result of anticipated Project-related traffic would represent a significant unmitigated air quality impact because 1-hour and &hour carbon monoxide exceedance would become worse under Project conditions. As to this significant environmental impact, the City Council and Agency finds that there are no feasible mitigation measures identified in the 1996 SEIR and Addendum that might reduce the level of significance of this impact, and specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the adoption of the only possible mitigation measure (as detailed in the Prior Findings) or the project alternatives (as detailed in Section V ). Therefore, in order to approve the Planning Approvals and the DDA as applicable, the approval resolution or other official approval action must contain the City Council's and/or the Agency's statement of overriding considerations (contained in Exhibit B) in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081 (b) and Section 15093 (b) of the State CEQA Guidelines. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT A. OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION CRITERIA Introduction. This Section V provides an introduction to and overview of the extensive evaluation of alternatives to the Project and reuse of the Property that has been performed by the Agency and City Council, in consultation with nearby property owners and the general Campbell community, over the past several years. This section evaluates four specific alternative uses for the Property in terms of environmental effects and ability to achieve redevelopment and other community objectives. The information and analysis is drawn from Section 5 of the 1992 Draft EIR, Section 4 of the Draft 1996 SEIR (as modified in the Final 1996 SEIR)including the 1997 Addendum, the ERA Alternatives Study, the Staff Reports on Alternatives, and other information known through deliberations and discussions on alternative uses for the Property. Overview of Process Since 1992 E1R. The 1992 EIR evaluated several alternatives for the Property in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines, including the No Project Alternative and several alternative land uses on the -8- 1030Q6.P$O 12/30/96 Property. After the Agency purchased the Property in 1994, it conducted an extensive public process to determine the optimum land use for the Property. A variety of land use Concepts for the Property were developed, and were formally evaluated in the ERA Alternatives Study (1995) and the Staff Reports on Alternatives (1996). The purpose of the ERA Alternatives Study, the Staff Reports on Alternatives, and the Agency's public input process was to help determine a land development strategy that balanced environmental considerations, Campbell's financial and non-financial objectives for the Property, and the ability to improve the McGlincey Lane area's infrastructure. Through a series of meetings and evaluations, four land use alternatives for the site were developed, taking into account and building upon the evaluation of land use alternatives set forth in the 1992 EIR. The predominant land uses in the four alternatives were: commercial recreation, industrial, residential, and public park. Because there was an interest in relocating the City's corporation yard to the Property, each alternative then had two sub-alternatives or variations, one with and one without the corporation yard. The land sale or land lease revenue potential of each alternative was analyzed, in addition to overall municipal cost and revenue implications. The cost analysis included roadway improvements, utilities upgrading, park development, park maintenance, and other General Fund service costs. The Agency's evaluation on how to proceed with the use of the Property also considered the compatibility of the use with the surrounding neighborhood, other environmental issues as outlined in the 1992 EIR, the desires of the community, and potentially creative proposals which developers would be able to bring into the process. After the ERA Alternatives Study was received and reviewed by the Agency Board, the Agency decided to issue an RFP to developers, corporations, and other parties that might be interested in purchasing and developing all or a portion of the Property. The RFP did not restrict the proposals to a certain land use or development type; rather, it identified the range of four land uses that had been evaluated in the ERA Alternatives Study and encouraged submittals for creative projects that could meet the City's and Agency's f'mancial and non- financial objectives. The Agency received eight proposals from developers; four for commercial recreation, three for research and development/light industrial, and one for a private school. Upon extensive evaluation and public discussion, the Agency Board chose to negotiate with the Developer for the sale of the Property and -9- !030~6.P50 12/30/96 development of the Project because the Project appears to best meet the goals and objectives established for the Property, taking into account relevant environmental impacts. Redevelopment and Planning Objectives. In determining what land use alternatives were viable for the Property, several objectives were considered including the following (the "Redevelopment and Planning Objectives"): a) Land Use Compatibility. The Agency evaluated what lcind of land use would be compatible where the surrounding land use consisted of primarily industrial uses bordered by a freeway. This setting makes a residential reuse of the Property very problematic. Additionally, residents of the Pasco de Palomas Mobile Home Park immediately adjacent to the Property are particularly concerned with a recreational use that might include sports activities, such as a golf driving range or sports fields where noise would be a concern. Development of a research and development/light industrial business park on the Property is generally viewed as the most compatible land' use. The site reserved for a public park or open space in the Project as more recently modified is at 'the far side of the Property from the mobile home park and will minimize any effect on the mobile homes. b) Redevelopment Goals and Objectives. The Redevelopment Plan identifies several goals for the McGlincey Lane area, including improvement of Cristich Lane to a public street, extending storm drain to address existing point and non-point source water pollution concerns, improving water supply to provide adequate fu'e flow and to address inadequate fu'e suppression conditions in the area, and to facilitate the development of the Property which has been a blight in the area for 15 years. Existing redevelopment funds and anticipated tax increment revenues are not adequate to finance these capital projects. The net proceeds generated by the sale of the Property and the development of the site itself could help finance many of these improvements. Without such net sale proceeds, Agency tax increment revenue from the area is not likely to be sufficient to fund new redevelopment activities in the forseeable future. c) Financial Feasibility. The City loaned the Agency $3.34 million to acquire the Property on a short term basis to help facilitate its development. The Agency determined that, at a minimum, the sale of the Property should generate enough revenue to retire the Agency's debt to the City, net of any Agency costs and obligations associated with the development of the Property. Based on the -10- I030Q6.PSO 12/30/96 d) commercial recreation projects proposed, none were determined to be financially feasible under this standard, while the proposed research and development Project is estimated to provide a net return sufficient to fund certain public improvements including storm drain and a four acre public open space area of benefit to the McGlincey Lane area and yield additional funds in excess of $2 million after costs and expenses. Public Open Spaces. In addition to the acquisition costs, developing and maintaining the entire Property as a public park would require an additional $5 to $7 million depending upon the extent of on-site improvements and required off-site improvements needed to develop adequate access and infrastructure to the Property. The focus of the Open Space Element of the General Plan is on creating more neighborhood parks; and in particular, the east side of Campbell is deficient of neighborhood park space. However, the Property is challenged in meeting many of the criteria established on page 8 of the Open Space Element of the General Plan for acquiring and developing open space. For example, the Property is not within walking distance to a significant number of Campbell neighborhoods, it is not particularly visible or accessible to Campbell residents due to lack of convenient pedestrian and vehicular access, and the frequency of commercial tracks and vehicles in the area does not provide a desirable condition for public open space and park land as defined by the Open Space Element.. Given the costs for development, a park occupying most of the 23.58-acre Property does not appear to be financially feasible for a City which already supports a City-wide 30-acre recreational facility at the Community Center and John D. Morgan Park, a 25 acre public park. In addition, local youth sports groups such as the Campbell Little League, Bobby Sox, and Soccer Leagues have not expressed support, and other public agencies either did not express support or were not financially able to consider a partnership with Campbell for development of the site. In the Commission's April and May 1997 consideration of the Original Project, substantial community interest was expressed in setting aside some portion of the Property for public park or open space use. Based on the community interest, the Commission has determined to recommend a four-acre public open space. The response by the Commission to recommend a public open space component is at least partially to address the need of a four to six 1030Q6.PS0 12/30/96 acre "neighborhood" size park while preserving the development of the balance of the site for an economically viable commercial project that addresses the Agency's redevelopment goals and objectives in the area. These Redevelopment and Planning Objectives have been distilled from the General Plan, the Redevelopment Plan, the 1992 Report to City Council, the Agency's Implementation Plan, hearings and comment on the Original Project, and other evidence in the record, and provide a basis for evaluating the ability of various alternatives to satisfy the Agency/City goals for redevelopment of the Property. The 1996 SEIR Alternatives Analysis. Several of the land use alternatives for the Property evaluated in the 1992 EIR remain relevant and valid as alternatives to the Project for CEQA purposes. The analysis of these alternatives is incorporated by reference in the 1996 SEIR and is summarized in Section V.B below. Specifically, SectionV.B. 1 evaluates the No Project Alternative, as required by CEQA. Section V.B.2 evaluates two land use alternatives for the Property that were initially considered in the 1992 EIR and that have been a focus of continuing consideration by the Agency over the past three years, as outlined above: a residential use, and a large public park use. The only uses of the Property that have received serious consideration in the ERA Alternatives Study and subsequent Agency deliberations, but that was not evaluated from an environmental alternatives perspective in the 1992 EIR are the commercial recreation use and a small public park or open space in conjunction with light industrial development, which has now become part of the project itself. Section V.B.3 below provides a summary of the environmental and other impacts of a commercial recreation use, based on the new discussion of that alternative contained in the 1996 SEIR. The 1992 EIR and the 1996 SEIR did not analyze any alternative location for the Project. Recent court cases suggest that CEQA may, where appropriate, require an analysis of alternative locations for a project, as well as alternative projects on the same site. CEQA requires that the alternatives be capable of obtaining the basic objectives of the proposed project (Section 15126(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines). For the following reasons, it has been concluded that there is no feasible alternative location for the Project. The Property is the only relatively large, currently undeveloped site in the City of Campbell or immediate environs that could accommodate a high-end research and development park of the size and scope contemplated for the Project. Assembling a sufficiently large site to accommodate the Project at another location in Campbell or its environs would result in business and/or residential relocation, demolition, public infrastructure improvements, and conflicting land use in built-up neighborhoods that would cause more disruption and adverse environmental impact than would development of the Project on the vacant, relatively isolated Property. The costs of land assembly would be several times greater than the land cost of the Property, making development of the Project at another location in the general vicinity of the Property economically impractical for the Agency and any private developer. In short, an alternative location for the Project would be prohibitively costly to assemble and would cause more severe environmental impacts than locating the Project on the Property. Consequently, consistent with Section 15125(d)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, an alternative lOcation for the Project is found to be infeasible and has not been evaluated further in the 1996 SEIR or this Exhibit A. ~o3oQ6~o Be SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES AND REASONS FOR RKIECTION Following is a summary of the proposed land use alternatives for the Property evaluated in the 1996 SEIR (including relevant alternatives from the 1992 EIR as incorporated by reference). The reasons for their selection as the most viable alternatives are addressed in SectionV.A above. The likely environmental impacts of each alternative and each alternative's ability to meet the Redevelopment and Planning Objectives are briefly summarized and are compared to the environmental impacts and potential of the Project to meet the Redevelopment and Planning Objectives. Each alternative is rejected as being infeasible because it fails to meet one or more of the Redevelopment or Planning Objectives in a timely manner and/or would cause various adverse environmental or fiscal impacts that can be avoided through implementation of the Project. The reasons for rejection of the alternatives are summarized below and are supported by substantial evidence in the record. The No Project Alternative. The No Project Alternative mean.q that the Property would remain vacant (unless the Agency permitted reuse for one of the other alternatives analyzed separately below). Potentially significant adverse impacts of the Project related to traffic, noise, air quality, construction impacts, hazardous materials, seismic safety, and cultural -13- 1030Q6.PSO 12/30/96 resources would generally not occur under the No Project Alternative since such impacts are generally associated with the development process. The vacant site would be less aesthetically appealing to some observers then a well designed Project. On balance, the No Project Alternative would have the fewest adverse environmental effects and would be considered the environmentally superior alternative among those evaluated in the 1992 EIR and the 1996 SEIR. Most important, the No Project Alternative would prevent the reuse of the largest and one of the most blighted parcels in the Project Area, thereby frustrating an essential purpose of the Redevelopment Plan and the Agency's Implementation Plan. For these reasons, the No Project Alternative fundamentally fails to achieve the underlying Redevelopment and Planning Goals of the Agency and the City. On this basis, the finding is made that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the No Project Alternative, and the No Project Alternative is hereby rejected even though it might prove to be an environmentally superior alternative. Alternative Land Uses on Property Evaluated in 1992 ErR (as Updated in 1996). Several alternative land uses for the Property were considered in the 1992 EIR. Two of the alternatives -- residential and larger public park -- are relevant to the current consideration of alternatives to the Project because they reflect two of the four basic alternatives considered in the ERA Alternatives Study, the Staff Reports on Alternatives, and the Agency's recent deliberations on appropriate uses for the Property. Following is a brief summary of those two alternatives that builds upon the material in the 1992 EIR. a) Residential. Although the traffic generation rates are lower for residential uses on the Property than for commercial, office or industrial uses like the proposed Project, residential uses generate traffic in both the morning and evening peak periods. Residential uses also place a higher demand on City services and generate limited City revenues. A residential use in the Property would not be compatible with the elevated noise levels generated from SR-17 traffic, and marketing a residential development on the site would be difficult, given its access through and proximity to the McGlincey Lane industrial area. In summary, a residential use of the Property might be marginally superior to the Project from a traffic and air quality perspective, but would cause greater land use conflict and noise impacts than the Project. -14- b) Overall, it is difficult to judge if the residential alternative would be superior or inferior to the Project from an environmental perspective. On the other hand, the residential alternative would clearly fail to meet Redevelopment and Planning Objectives related to land use compatibility. For these reasons, the finding is made that specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the residential alternative for the Property, and the residential alternative is hereby rejected. Large Public Park. During the public scoping meetings for the 1992 EIR, several comments from nearby residents suggested the City consider a park/open space use as the main use for the Property. In June 1990, the Cambrian Community Council also recommended that a park be considered for the Property as part of a mixed use project. A public park use would generate less traffic than the Project, and generally would produce more limited environmental effects related to air quality, construction impacts, hazardous materials impacts, cultural resource impacts, and seismic safety impacts. From this perspective, a large public park use would be the environmentally superior alternative for the Property (other than the No Project Alternative). However, a public park use would be susceptible to the same negative land use compatibility effects as a residential use at the Property, i.e., traffic noise and air quality impacts from proximity to SR-17. In addition, the Property would have no direct access to a public street and is not centrally located to the remainder of the Union Avenue neighborhood. Drive-by surveillance of the site would be difficult. Lack of public visibility is often a factor leading to security and vandalism at parks. As noted in Section V.A.3 above, the Property is challenged in meeting many of the General Plan Open Space Element criteria for suitable public park locations. Finally, a public park use alternative for the entire 23.58 acre site could cause negative financial impacts to the City and Agency as described in Section VI.A.3. Park development could require $5-7 million of City funds and approximately $350,000 in annual maintenance costs could further impact the General Fund, possibly precluding funding other competing capital projects, including implementation of the Campbell Community Center Master Plan and future park acquisition and development in other areas of the City. The Agency would lose the ability to generate net sale proceeds to fund other activities in the McGlincey Lane area or to repay the City loan. 1030Q6.PS0 12/30/96 In April and May 1997, the Planing Commission considered the Original Project and after recommending certification of the 1996 SE]R, recommended to the City Council that the project be redesigned to allow for incorporation of a four acre public open space amenity on the Site. On June 17, 1997, the City Council in considering the Original Project and in response to the recommendation of the Planning Commission, requested that the Developer submit a redesign of the Original Project, to permit consideration of a four acre public open space area. The Planning Commission, in making its recommendation, acknowledged that while it was not desirable to develop the entire Site as public open space, the Open Space Element of the General Plan identifies a need for "neighborhood" size parks or opens space sites ( 4 to 6 acres in size), particularly in the Union Avenue area (including the McGlincey Lane area). And while it is acknowledged that this area may not conform to all Open Space criteria, this condition does not create a potential adverse environmental impact. In fact, it may provide environmental benefit. For these reasons, the Commission has recommended that a four -acre park or open space be included in the Project as revised. This acreage can be set aside without an unacceptable significant effect on the economics of developing the Property and furthering the redevelopment goals in the area. In summary, while a public park use over the entire Site would prove environmentally superior to the Project, that alternative would fail to satisfy nearly ail of the community's Redevelopment and Planning Objectives in the McGlincey Lane area. For these reasons, the finding is made that specific economic, social or other considerations make feasible the partial use of the Site for public open space use and infeasible the entire use of the Site for public park and the use of the entire Site for a public park alternative is hereby rejected. The Commercial Recreation Alternative. A commercial recreation land use on the Property might consist of a golf practice range, a family recreation complex, a buffer area between the site and the mobile home park, and possible inclusion of the City corporation yard. The golf practice range is assumed to have 50 stations on two levels, and a club house/pro shop of about 2,000 square feet. The family recreation complex may include uses such as an arcade, restaurant, miniature golf course, go-cart track, batting cages, bumper rides, children rides, and "soft play" area. Most of these activities would be outdoors. 1030~6.P50 12/30/96 Ce I030Q6.PSO 12/30/96 A commercial recreation alternative would generate approximately 5,800 vehicle trips daily (as opposed to an estimated 2,538 daily trips for the Project), but the trips would likely be distributed more evenly throughout a 24-hour period than the AM/PM peak distribution associated with the proposed Project. A substantial number of trips would be generated in the late afternoon and evening, when children are not in school. This alternative would also generate higher noise levels than the proposed Project, because the majority of activities would take place outdoors. Several activities, such as go-carts, bumper ears, and children rides, could generate substantial noise levels which may impact the Pasco de Palomas mobile home park. Other variants of a commercial recreation alternative might have fewer high-noise impacts, but any commercial recreation variant involving outdoor activities is likely to have noise impacts that exceed those anticipated for the Project. Environmental effects of a commercial recreation alternative related to construction impact, hazardous materials, and cultural resource disturbance are likely to be similar to the anticipated impacts of the Project. A commercial recreation alternative would fail to meet fundamental Redevelopment and Planning Objectives related to land use compatibility problems with the adjacent mobile home park (see Section VA.3 above). One variant of the commercial recreation alternative considered by the Agency was the proposal in response to the development RFP submitted by a non-profit recreational entity called "Sports Mall". When other development proposals were rejected by the Agency Board, the "Sports Mall Task Force" was provided an opportunity to demonstrate the financial viability of their project. The Sports Mall proposal includes various indoor and outdoor sports activities on a lease or membership basis. An independent economic report commissioned by the Task Force indicated that financing for such a project was tenuous. It was determined that this kind of facility would likely serve as a regional rather than local resource, and no other public agencies were willing to step forward at that time to participate in financing such a project. The Task Force was not able to adequately demonstrate the financial viability of their project, and the proposed sports mall concept was not considered further. For these reasons, the finding is made that specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the commercial recreation alternative for the Property, and the commercial recreation alternative is hereby rejected. OVERALL FINDING REGARDING ALTERNATIVES After consideration of a reasonable range of identified alternatives to the -17- Project, the Agency and the City Council fred that none is as beneficial to the community as the proposed Project in terms of achieving the Redevelopment and Planning Objectives, and that because of each alternative's inability to achieve one or more of the Redevelopment and Planning Objectives, each identified alternative is rejected as being infeasible. 1030Q6.P$0 12/30/96 Atta~hmen! #! L. City of Campbell Redevelopment Agency Winchester Drive-In Site Pzoject Supplemental Environmental Impact Repozt Mlti~afio~ lVionltad~ l'roSnm for S~pplemmtal EuvtnmmenUl lmp~t Repoa ma ~ ~ The following table has been developed in accordance with section 15'163 of the Califomfa Enidro~tal t~h~lity Act (CEO. A) Guideline, and contains ~ mftt~atton mea~u~ nt~ssary to develop the proposed research and development/lisht industrial business park. This table includes a list of mitisations ~nd the reference to tl~ appropflat~ ~vi~ Impact ]~art category, the impact, the timln~ of the mitigation, the City of C~n~1>ell de~t responsible for the implementalion of the ndtl~atlon, the gate the mitIg~tion Il mordtm~.d and/or completed, and the initials of the individual that w~ responsible for monltorln~ and/or ensurin~ completion of the ~ppropriate ndtlg~tion. Project construction will be phaMd .and the timing of mitisation implementation will be determined durin~ the project reivew and public review process and as ~ in the project conditions of sppmvaL ~C Additional traffic at the Intersectiom of Union Avenue/McGlincey Lane ~d ~/Union MrrZGATI_ON ~GATION- · The applicant shall install · traffic signal st this intersection, ln~udlM an exclusive left-turn lane from Union Avarae to ~ Applicant shall remove three l~Lrkir~ sp~ces at the eut les ~ north~und approach on Union Avenue to provide m exclusive rJ~ht-ium ~ TIMING Fouow~ Publl~ Works ~u~orks/ PUNk Works/ 1 Intersection. the ~ Avneue/ traffic from Cutout Avenue Provide ~ to tl~ site completion of Fonowin~ t~ mmpletion of west of Westchester Drive far city mzeetL t~e project. The project the tr~fic circula~on PvbUc Works Pub~ Work~ l'ubltc W~ 2 NOISE may exceed ambient noJ~ levels. Applicant shall restrlpe ~ northbo~ approach t~ fnte~ection ~ add a n~w exdusfve right*turn lane. Applicant ~ pay a proportional traffic impa~t at the Camden/Cumm' AppUcnnt shall e°mply ~lth all Oty of Campbell trait en~i~_-er~g and deti~n standm'ds. Applicant/project. shall comply with tll noise I~'~o~ ~ as described in Section 3.2.3 of the Suplemental Envfronmental Impact AppUctnt/proJect shall ~oa~ply wHh all ~oise desto'bed ~ ~,c~lo~ ~.~ of the Suplenuntll buildout and final final t~ollow/ng completion o~ the project ~nd flnel PubUc Works Public Works ,~lb~ Works Public Works/ 3 [. Ant QUAI3T~ aul~1¥ improvements may gt, sult in constm~on- related noLse, dust and traffic diw. rsion. available to th~ project that will reduce this impact beJow imp~'t. Construction activities shall be coordinnted with the approprt~te Jurisdiction, ~"-~pbell and/or tan Jose, to reduce construction related impacts. N/A Public Works/ RDA will create additional oms~u~ton Publl~Worb othre comtruction related activities. ~DOUS The use, storage, and transport of J,~-~rdous ~terb~s ~ the l~oject leel~, or accidents irwolvtn& these mateflnls. constru~on activity. T~ ~ site ts subject t~ event of a rmlor l~ndsco Bay Region. eomtruction ~ctivigm. tenants shall comply with the Ha~rdous Materials Ston~ Ordinance and Toxic C, as Ordimnce. ~countered durtr~ construction, all development activity shall cease fmmediately. A tm'g/led archeologist shall be eontacted and be present at all Appropr'hte trdtiSmoM shll be developed k &t the ttme of excavation and · The pml~,t a~v~o~ ~n Isunains implement all applicable [ Permit plan Central Rte District/Public Works En~tal ilundU~/ Public Works/ RDA D]~.~TAG~ / InstalLetf~n o~ storm drainage facilities The developer shall compl~ with fdl applicable regulations rehted to mitigation of noise, dust and traffic control m~_~u~s. 6 EXHIBIT "B" STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS IN SUPPORT OF PLANNING APPROVALS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE FORMER WINCHESTER DRIVE-IN SITE I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Pumo~e. This Exhibit B sets forth the Statement of Overriding Considerations the Planning Commission makes to the City Council (The "City Council") of the City of Campbell (the "City") in compliance with Sections 15092 and 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines and Section 21081 (b) of Public Resources Code in recommending approval of a Planned Development Permit, General Plan Amendment and Vested Tentative Subdivision Map (the "Plavnlng Approvals") for development of a 280,000 square foot high-end research and development/business park and associated on-md-off-sim improvements (the "Project") by WTA Campbell Technology Park, LLC (the "Developer") and the designation of a four (4) acre remainder parcel for public open space. B. The Project. The Developer proposed to develop 23.58 acres of the former Winchester Drive-In theater site (the "Site") for a 330,000 square foot research and development business park (the "Original Project"). On June 17, 1997 the City Council, in considering the Planning Approvals, and acting upon the recommendation of the Planning Commission, requested that the Developer submit a redesign of the Original Project to accommodate a four acre parcel for public open space. The Developer submitted a redesign of the Original Project which proposes developing a 280,000 square foot research and development business park and the Agency retaining four acres designated for public open space (the "Project"). The Site is located in the McGlincey Lane industrial area of the Central Campbell Redevelopment Project Area. The Project will include three, two-story buildings ranging in size from 60,000 to 100,000 square feet and one 40,000 square foot single story building, associated parking, landscaping and off- site improvements on 19.58 acres, and a designated four acre public open space parcel. The Site has been vacant for the past 15 years despite several private sector efforts to cause its redevelopment, h is the largest and one of the most blighted parcels in the Project Area. The Agency purchased the Site in 1994 so that it could control the Site's timely redevelopment in furtherance of the goals and objectives of the Redevelopment Plan. Such timely redevelopment is viewed by the Agency as the linch-pin to overall redevelopment of the McGlincey Lane portion of the Project Ares, and is a critical element of the Agency's five-year implementation Plan (defined below). Exhibit B - Statement of Ov ling Considerufions (Winchester Drive-In S~ C. The CEOA Process. The Agency and the City have caused preparation of a supplemen~l environmental impact report (SCH# 96072018) (the "1996 SEIR') pursuant to CEQA to evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed Project and the DDA. The 1996 SEIR builds upon a 1992 environmental impact report (SCH# 91053015) (the "1992 EIR") that evaluated, among other matters, a prior proposed development of the By concurrent resolution of Sanuary 7, 1997 (the "1996 SEIR Resolution"), the Agency and the City Council certified the 1996 S£IR and made findings regarding the impacts of the Project in accordance with CEQA and the State CEQA C, uidelines. The 1996 SBIR Resolution identified one unavoidable potentially significant environmental impact of the Project as follows: The increase in concentrations of carbon monoxide at the Carnden/Curtner and Union/Campbell intersections as a result of anticipated Project-related traffic would represent a significant unmitigated air quality impact because l-hour and 8-hour carbon monoxide exceedances would become worse under Project conditions. An Addendum was prepared to address the changes between the Original Project and the Project. The primary changes are a reduction in building area by $0,000 square feet and the designation of four acres for use as public open space. While the Project impa~ are less significant than the Original Pwject due to less tra~c impacts, there still exists an unavoidable potentially significant environmental impact on Air Quality. Accordingly, the Planning Commission is recommending this Statement of Overriding Considerations. II. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The Planning Commission has fully considered the discussion and analysis in the Record regarding the environmental impacts and socioeconomic effects of the Project. The Planning Commission finds that the approval and the implementation of the Project will provide significant economic, social and other benefits of the Project which ov~ride and outweigh the unavoidable significant air quality impact identified in the 1996 SEIR Resolution· The Planning Commission further finds that the alternatives to the Project identified in the 1992 EIR, and the 1996 SEIR Resolution are infeasible for th~ r~sens stated therein and because such alternatives would limit the economic, social and other benefits that will. be provided by the Pwject. Following are the specific Project b~fits upon which these findings and statement of overriding considerations are bas~: A. Elimination of Blit, ht on the Pro_~ertv, The Planning Commission flBds ghat implementation pursuant to the granting of discretionary Planning Approvals will eliminate blight on the Property, thereby accomplishing a central purpose and achieving a primary benefit of the City's Redevelopment Plan for that area. F. xh~it B - Statement of Ovemaing Considerations (Wincher~r Drive-ln S~) The Property is the largest underutilized parcel in the Project Area and, consequently, constitutes one of its most blighted properties. The Property has remained unused for l $ years despite several private sector redevelopment efforts. As munmafized in the 1992 Report to Council: "Although a number of properties suffer from adverse conditions cited above, the site of the former Winchester Drive-In Theater provides the single most significant example of economic dislocation, deterioration, and disuse within the Expa~ion Area. This 24-re:re site has abandoned, partially demolished buildings; broken projection screens; and hazardous wastes. The property also lacks satisfactory access to public sUez~. Repeated efforts to develop the site have failed due, in part, to the extraordinary costs ~ssociated with removing hnT~rdous wastes and improving accessibility. Private redevelopment of this site, without public assistance in the form of redevelopment, will be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve." (1992 Report to Council, pages !1I-5 and 111-6.) The Agency and City Council amended the Redevelopment Plan in 1992 in substantial part to include the Drive-In site and the remainder of the McOlincey Lane industrial area in the Project Area, so that redevelopment resources could be focused on revitali~ng the Property. A basic objective of the Redevelopment Plan states that: "The Agency will facilitate economic revitalization in .the McGlincey Lane area by:... providing assistance to a developer or developers, as necessary, in developing the former Winchester Drive-In site in a manner consistent with the General Plan . " (Redevelopment Plan, page 9). Likewise, the Agency's five-year Implementation Plan describes the benefit of redeveloping the Property as follows: "The Winchester Drive-In Site has sat vacant for over 10 years. It is difficult to develop because of the poor access to the site, substandard infrastn~-ture to serve it and the surrounding area, and the general poor condition of the surrounding area. Its development will eliminate a large, underutilized piece of property and should prompt improvement of surrounding properties." (Implementation Plan, page 27.) To accomplish redevelopment of the Pwperty, the Agency gained site control in 1994, arranged for the necessary hazardous materials remediation, and through the DDA will pay for storm drain improvements and park improvements that will facilitate revitalization of the Property and the surrounding McOlincey Lane industrial area. which the Developer is prepared to purchase and develop. The Project itself will be one of the highest quality industrial parks in the City and region, and will eliminate the major blighting influence described above. Exhibit B - Statement of Overriding Considm-ations (Winchester Drive-ln Site) B. Elimination ~)f Bligh! in Remaining proiect Area. The Planning Commission finds that implementation of the Project subject to the granting of the discretionary Planning Approvals will eliminate blight in the adjacent McOlincey Lane portion of the Project Area, thereby achieving related purposes and benefits ofthe Redevelopment Plan. As noted in the Implementation Plan, the McGlinc~ Lan~ area: "... was brought into the redevelopment project area in 1992 in order to address a host of adverse conditions in the area including dilapidated buildings, substandard and a number of factors inhibiting proper land utilization and development." (Implementation Plan, page 27; see also 1992 Report to Council, Section HI and accompanying Report on Existing Conditions.) Several of the redevelopment objectives and programs set forth in the Redevelopment 'Plan and the Agency's Implementation Plan relate to ~x.witalization of the McGlincey Lane area through Agency provision of necessary slreet and public improvemenu and other assistance to property owners (see Redevelopment Plan, Pan IV.B and Implementation Plan, pages 27-28). Development of the project pursuant to the granting of the necessary Planning Approvals Will provide an essential catalyst to elimination of blight and revitalization of the McGlincey Lane area in five direct ways. First, the Project will constitute a "flagship" development for the area, making clear the area's locational potential for quality industrial uses. Second, the new businesses and employees in the Project will be a source of customers for other businesses in the McGlincey Lane area and the larger Campbell community. Third, through the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) the Agency will generate approximately $2.2 million dollars of net sale proceeds (after taking into account acquisition costs, carrying costs, and costs of storm drain infrastmcua'e and a public park/open space to be paid by the Agency). The net sale proceeds will provide the Agency with a vital source of immediate cash that can be reinvested in the Project Area to further other redevelopment and commtmlty goals and objectives. Fourth, by putting the Property back on the tax rolls and causing development of approximately 280,000 square feet of quality research and development facilities, Project will annually generate approximately $50,000 of mx increment sv,,enue for affordable housing programs and $30,000 of tax increment revenue for other activities that will further the Agency's redevelopment program for the Project Area Finally, through the DDA and Planning Approvals, the Developer will be required to provide a range of additional intersection and utility improvements that will benefit the Exh~it B - Statement of Overriding Considerations (Winchester Ikive~In Si~) Page 5 entire McGlincey Lane Industrial Area. (see the 1996 SEIR Resolution, Exhibit A and Conditions of Approval for the Planned Development Permit). C. Economic Revitali.n__tion of the Prolect Are-, The Planning Commission find that approval of the Planning Approvals and implementation of the Project will significantly strengthen the economic base of the Project Area, offer employment opportunities to qualified local residents, generate additional spending power within Campbell to the benefit of existing and new Campbell businesses, and contribute to the appropriate balance between jobs and housing in Campbell. At buildou~ the Project is expected to generate 600 new full-time employees at one or more new businesses. The jobs and businesses are expected to be at the high-end of research and development uses, thereby producing high incomes for employees and enhancing the reputation of Campbell as a place to do business. These benefits will help to fulfill economic revitalization objectives of the Redevelopment Plan (see Section XV.B.4 of the Redevelopment Plan) and the Agency's Implementation Plan, which states: "Attracting and retaining key businesses is important to the success of the redevelopment project area, as well as to the City as a whole. In order to redevelop properties and eliminate blighting conditions, the area must have 'a strong and successful business presence in order to attract new development." (Implementation Plan, page 28.) DEVELOPMENT POLICIES The land use is limited to industrial and open space uses. Induslrial uses for the purposes of this site are defined as those uses listed below and as described in the Controlled Manufacturing Zoning District. Open Space uses shall provide a minimum area of 4 acres for public use and shall be located to minimize impacts on adjacent mobile home park residents. Allowed uses as follows: a. Administrative, executive and financial offices; b. Manufacture, assembly, packag- ing or distribution of products from previously prepared materials such as cloth, plastic, paper, leather, metal, precious or semiprecious materials or stones; c. Manufacture of eleclric or electronic instruments and devices such as television, radio, phonographic equipment, computers and computer components; d. Manufacture of pharmaceuticals and food products; e. Research and development laboratories and offices; f. Warehousing and distribution facilities including mini-storage; g. Commercial recreation and athletic facilities, including but not limited to health spas, gyms, tennis, handball, racquetball and batting range; h. Restaurants, when intended primarily to serve the immediate industrial area; i. Retail businesses compatible with the CM zone. The planned development permit application shall master plan development of the entire site. B. Develom'nent Intensity 1. A floor area ratio (FAR) of approximately .40 is anticipated for this site. In conjunction with consideration a specific development application and a public hearing, the City Council may authorize a FAR exceeding .40 with the following findings: a. The additional FAR will not adversely affect the adjoining uses° 'b. The additional FAR will not adversely affect the local circulation system. c. The use characteristics are substantially similar to those envisioned by this General Plan cl. Adequate parking can be provided on-site. C. Traffic and Access 1. Development on this site requires a detailed traffic analysis which studies project traffic impacts on the local circulation network including appropriate intersections and neighborhoods in adjoining jurisdictions. The City should consult with the adjoining jurisdictions to identify the inter- sections and neighborhoods to be studied. 2. In conjunction with a development "application for this site, the applicant shall submit information regarding off-site improvements proposed to mitigate traffic impacts and to improve site access. Details Special Project Areas - Winchester Drive-In Site shall be provided improvement and modifications. on road intersection D. Noise 1. Noise-generating facilities such as loading docks and mechanical equipment should be located away and/or buffered fi.om residential areas. 2. Noise shall be attenuated where the site adjoins residential uses. 3. Public open space area shall be located at the southerly end of the site. E. Landscavin~ 1. The future development should provide a landscape buffer along the westerly property line to create an attractive appearance when viewed fi.om Highway 17. 2. Dense landscaping shall be provided along property lines abutting residential uses. The landscaping should block views of the development and ensure privacy for residents. 3. Landscaping should be provided throughout the parking areas to provide shade and visual relief. The developer is encouraged to provide planters at the ends of parking aisles and to intersperse planters within the aisles. 4. Landscaping should also be provided to filter views of the building mass. F. Parkin~ The developer should provide data on the parking demand for the specific use. 1. The developer shall submit a sign program. The sign program shall include: Special Project Areas - Winchester Drive-In Site a. Off-site directional signs consistent with the Sign Requirements. b. Criteria for the placement and size of building identification signs consistent with the Sign Regulations for industrial uses. i '/ ® ® ® ® fi) (3 ® ® ® ® ® ® ! t Iltl 0 !~ 0 ~:, RESOLUTION NO. 3130 BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL (S 97-05) TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO OFF-PREMISE SIGNS AND LANDSCAPING AT THE McGLINCEY LANE ENTRANCE TO THE SITE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 571 McGLINCEY LANE. APPLICATION OF MR. KEN NEUMEISTER, ON BEHALF OF WTA DEVELOPMENT AND HEUTTIG & SCHROMM, INC. FILE NO. S 97-05 After notification and public hearing, as specified by law, and after presentation by the Community Development Staff, environmental consultant, Redevelopment Staff, proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed. After due consideration of all evidence presented, the Planning Commission finds as follows with respect to application S 97-05: The proposed entry signage and landscaping is a permitted use for the site and is consistent with the M-1-S (Light Industrial) zoning designation and Industrial General Plan land use designation for the site. The proposed project is of an appropriate scale and design and is compatible with the existing surrounding uses. The proposed project site is of adequate size to develop the proposed entry feature and street. Based on the foregoing findings of fact, the Planning Commission further finds and concludes that: The establishment, maintenance or operation of the use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, or be detrimental or injurious to the property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City. The proposed project will aid in the harmonious development of the surrounding environment. The proposed use is compatible with the surrounding uses in the area, subject to the Conditions of Approval. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3130 S 97-05 - 535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 2 The conditions of approval are roughly proportional and reasonably related in nature and extent to the impacts of the project. Further, the applicants are notified as part of this application that they are required to comply with all applicable Codes and Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the State of California which pertain to this application and are not herein specified. And, that this approval is granted subject to the following Conditions of Approval. Landscaping Plan: Landscaping plan indicating type and size of plant material and location of the irrigation system, type and design of proposed walls or fencing to be submitted to the Planning Department and approved by the Site and Architectural Review Committee prior to issuance of building permits. The minimum size of trees and shrubs planted on-site, except as modified by conditions contained herein, shall be as follows: A. Trees shall be a minimum of 15 gallon. Twenty four inch box trees shall be required as a mitigation measure for all removed trees. B. Shrubs shall be a minimum of 5 gallons with the exception of accent shrubs that shall be a minimum of 1 gallon. The landscape plan shall comply with the City's Water Efficient Landscape Standards (WELS). A WELS checklist shall be submitted with the final landscape plan. (Planning) o Property Maintenance: Before and during construction, the site shall be kept free of weeds, trash and litter.(Planning) o Underground Utilities: Underground utilities to be provided as required by Section 20.36.150 of the Campbell Municipal Code. (Public Works) o Utili _ty Boxes and Back-Flow Preventers: Applicant to submit a plan to the Planning Department, prior to installation of PG&E transformer boxes and San Jose Water Company back-flow prevention devises, indicating the location of the boxes and screening (if boxes are above ground) for approval of the CDD. (Planning) o Signing Program: Applicant to submit a signage program plan for approval of the Community Development Director for the project site, prior to the installation of any signage. Signing program to provide details and criteria for all exterior project signage and to include the following: A. Off-site directional signage for the project at the project entry at McGlincey Lane. B. Building/tenant identification signage. All signage to comply with Chapter 21.53 of the Campbell Municipal Code. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3130 S 97-05 - 535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 3 Standard Street Improvements: Prior to approval of the final map or issuance of any building permits for the site, the applicant shall prepare plans, pay fees, post securities and provide insurance as required to obtain an encroachment permit to construct public street improvements as required by the City Engineer. Public street improvement plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer licensed in the State of California and shall include but not be limited to the following unless otherwise directed by the City Engineer: Construction of the 45-foot public street access to McGlincey Lane to include: 30- foot of asphalt concrete roadway; a standard marginal 5-foot sidewalk and a 5-foot landscaping strip along the west side of the street; a 5-foot landscaping strip along the east side of the street; no parking signs, signing and striping, standard curb and gutter, storm drainage facilities and street lighting facilities along both sides of the street; construction of driveways as required for existing parcels; and all conforms necessary to accommodate the existing improvements on the parcels south of the proposed development. Grading and Drainage Plan: Prior to approval of the final map or issuance of any building permits for the site, the applicant shall conduct hydrology studies as necessary, prepare grading and drainage plans and pay fees required to obtain necessary grading permits for the site. Grading plans shall include the procedure to be followed for abandonment of existing utility lines. Hydrology studies, grading and storm drainage plans shall include the public access road from McGlincey to the site. Storm drainage plans shall include existing invert and top of pipe elevations of the SCVWD culvert crossing the proposed roadway. Hydrology studies and storm drainage design shall include the drainage area bounded by Highway 17 to the west, Curtner Avenue to the south, the City limits to the east and the existing storm drain in McGlincey Lane easterly of the development to the north. The storm drainage plans for this drainage area shall include removal, replacement and/or installation of new storm lines as needed in McGlincey and Cristich Lanes to connect to a new and/or upsized storm drainage line required through the development, through the Paseo de Palomas private road and ultimately connecting to the existing storm drainage facilities in Union Avenue. Completion of this design is required to determine the appropriate size, location and invert elevations of the storm drainage facilities to be constructed on site that will allow for the future construction of the off-site storm drainage improvements in McGlincey Lane and Cristich Lane. The applicant shall be required to construct only the portions of this storm drainage facility that are on-site and the connection to the existing system in Union Avenue through the Pasco de Palomas private road. The applicant shall provide a "stub-out" to Planning Commission Resolution No. 3130 S 97-05 - 535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 4 Cristich Lane to allow for the future storm drain construction off-site. o Completion of Public Street Improvements: Prior to issuance of occupancy for the site, all public street improvements as required by the encroachment permit must be completed and accepted by the City Engineer and the applicant must provide the one-year maintenance security. Landscaping Maintenance Agreemenl[s: Prior to recordation of the final map, the applicant shall prepare and execute a landscape maintenance agreement requiring the developer to post securities and maintain all landscaping, irrigation and irrigation facilities, walls and fences within all public areas, including the public access street to McGlincey Lane and the new public access road adjacent to the property. This agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to being executed by both parties and recorded by the City. 10. Title Report: Provide a current Preliminary Title Report. 11. Coordination with Capital Improvement/Other Projects: Applicant shall coordinate with other city improvement projects within the vicinity. Location and installation of off-site improvements that may be required by other districts and utility companies shall be approved by the City. 12. Street Improvement Agreement: Prior to the approval of the final map, the applicant shall execute a street improvement agreement and post securities to guarantee the installation of the required street improvements. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of October, 1997, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Commissioners: Commissioners: Commissioners: Commissioners: Gibbons, Keams, Lowe, Meyer-Kennedy Jones Lindstrom None APPROVED: Susan A. Keams, Chair ATTEST: Steve Piasecki, Secretary RESOLUTION NO. 3131 BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. (PD 96-06). TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 280,000 SQUARE FOOT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PARK AND DESIGNATION OF A 4.0 PUBLIC OPEN SPACE AREA, ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT $35 WESTCHESTER DRIVE AND 571 McGLINCEY LANE. APPLICATION OF MR. KEN NEUMEISTER, ON BEHALF OF WTA DEVELOPMENT AND HEUTTIG & SCHROMM, INC. FILE NO. PD 96-06. After notification and public hearing, as specified by law, and after presentation by the Community Development Staff, the environmental consultant, Redevelopment Staff, proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed. After due consideration of all evidence presented, the Planning Commission finds as follows with respect to application PD 96-06: The proposed 280,000 square foot research and development park and on-site and off-site improvements are consistent with the general project description and evaluation provided in the 1996 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (1996 SEIR) and the Addendum prepared October 1997, which considered a 4 acre public open space component adjacent to the project. On January 7, 1997, the City Council found and certified that the 1996 SEIR has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and the Local CEQA Implementing Guidelines; that the 1996 SEIR adequately addresses the environmental issues of the project; and that the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the information in the 1996 SEIR, prior to making any recommendations to the City Council on the project and for the discretionary approvals necessary to the development of the project. An Addendum to the 1996 SEIR has been prepared evaluating a reduction in building square footage and addition of a 4 acre public open space component. The proposed project, subject to the proposed conditions of approval, incorporates a logical site layout and circulation pattern, sufficient landscaping and an attractive architectural design, and identifying a 4.0 acre public open space component for future development by the city. The proposed lot arrangement, as conditioned, allows for the creation of four industrial lots along a private street and a remainder lot to be use as a 4 acre public open space component along a new public street. The proposed street layout and driveway locations address the circulation needs and anticipated traffic. The improvements of local infrastructure including storm drainage facilities, water supply and roadway improvements will aid and encourage the redevelopment of neighboring industrial properties. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3131 PD 96-06 - 535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 2 The site layout could accommodate a pedestrian/bicycle overpass over Highway 17 fi:om the project site to the Los Gatos Creek Trail. The development and subdivision of the property will not substantially change the proposed project from that examined in the 1996 SEIR and the Addendum in any way that would involve new significant environmental effects or substantially increase the severity of any previously identified significant effects. o The development and subdivision of the property will not substantially change the circumstances under which the project is undertaken in a way which would involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. The development and subdivision of the property does not present any new information not previously known at the time when the SEIR was certified that would indicate that: a. The project will have any significant effects not previously discussed in the SEIR, or b. That any effects will be substantially more severe; or c. That mitigation measures found not to be feasible would now be feasible; or d. That mitigation measures or alternatives exist that are considerably different fi:om those analyzed in the SEIR. 10. The Addendum adequately discussed and evaluates the development and subdivision changes necessary to accommodate a 4 acre public open space component. 11. Absent the easement, the development of the industrial park would impede access to and from the existing and proposed recreation areas in the City of Campbell. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the Planning Commission further finds and concludes that: The proposed development and uses as presented will result in a highly desirable environment and use of the land. The development and uses are compatible with the recommended Mixed-Industrial and Public/Semi-Public Land Use and will aid in the harmonious development of the immediate area. o The development, as proposed, will enhance the health, safety or welfare of the neighborhood or the City as a whole. The applicants are hereby notified, as part of this application, that they are required to meet the following conditions in accordance with the Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the State of California. The lead department with which the applicant will work is identified. Additionally, Planning Commission Resolution No. 3131 PD 96-06 - 535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 3 the applicants are hereby notified that they are required to comply with all applicable Codes and Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the State of California that pertain to this development and are not contained herein. SITE AND BUILDING DESIGN: Approved Project: This approval is granted to construct a 280,000 square foot research and development complex 'of approximately 19.5 acres and the designation of approximately 4.0 acres of public open space on the south side of the site on properties identified as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 412-29-007, 412-30-035, 412-30-042 and 412-30- 043. Development shall be substantially as shown on the project and exhibit materials listed below, except as may be modified by conditions contained herein: (Planning) Ao The proposed research and development use shall substantially comply with the use description provided in the applicant's letter dated February 10, 1997, except as modified to accommodate the 4 acre open space component. The proposed industrial uses shall be conducted entirely with the interior of the buildings and not in the parking area, driveways or landscape areas surrounding the buildings, except for the on site parking and loading. Exterior storage yards and exterior tank or processing areas are not permitted with this approval. Building use to be restricted to administrative and private offices, conference and training areas, and complementary engineering/research development, testing and assembly areas, including warehousing and shipping/receiving areas. B. Project plans prepared by TSH Architects (20 pages) dated 10/13/97. C. Project description by Huettig & Schromm dated 2/10/97. Revised Plans and Elevations: Revised elevations and/or site plan indicating the following changes: A. Site Plan: Landscaping along Highway 17 Frontage: Obtain an encroachment permit from CALTRANS to install landscaping to infill existing openings along the Highway 17 frontage of the project. The applicant shall provide a maximum of 30 (15 gallon redwood trees) to achieve tree plantings 40-foot on center. Landscape Plan approval is required, prior to building occupancy and planting installation to be completed within one year of building occupancy. In the event that the applicant is unable to obtain an encroachment permit from CALTRANS, within the time specified then the applicant shall deposit funds with the City to cover the planting and installation of such trees, so that the City may pursue such permits. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3131 PD 96-06 - 535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 4 o Fencing: The proposed fencing along Highway 17 frontage and southern property west of the proposed public street to be a black vinyl clad 6 foot to 8 foot high, cyclone fence. A final fencing plan to be approved by the Site and Architectural Review Committee in conjunction with the landscaping and irrigation plan prior to the issuance of building permits. 3. Parking Ratio: Applicant to revise site plan to reduce the proposed parking ratio from 1:261 to 1:280. Landscape Percentage: Increase the percentage of landscaping to 30% of the site. Landscaping shall not include sidewalks and pathways except that passive plaza areas may be included. B. Elevations: Applicant to refine the building elevations to increase the building plane offset of up to two (2) feet at the lower window elements and/or add an additional trellis element from the concrete wall features on Buildings A, B, and C, and to install additional pillar treatments or other structures or landscape elements to accentuate the entrance to Buildings A, B and D. The refined elevations to be approved by the Site and Architectural Review Committee (SARC) prior to the issuance of building permits. 2. Applicant shall extend the concrete parapet treatment at building comers where the radius "bullnose" treatment is shown. 3. All roof-mounted equipment to be screened by the proposed parapet walls or feature walls at the building entrances. Co Transportation Demand Management: Applicant to participate in a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program for future tenants and to incorporate participation in such program through the covenants, conditions and restrictions. This program to incorporate, but is not limited to the following: 1. Provision of Bicycle Parking Facilities. 2. Provision of on-site food service facilities. 3. Participation in shuttle/car pool service to public transit facilities such as light rail stations or park and ride lots when these facilities are constructed. 4. Accommodation of bus stop locations, if public bus service is provided to the site. Hours of Operation: Hours of operation of the industrial park shall be limited to 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. with the exception of the activities described below: (Planning) Planning Commission Resolution No. 3131 PD 96-06 - 535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 5 A. Employee access to the site shall not be limited by hours of operation. B. Delivery hours shall be restricted per the project description. Trucking access is not permitted from 11 p.m. to 6:30 a.m. Operation hours of exterior activities (e.g. loading, unloading, outdoor recreation, etc.) to be limited to the hours of 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. for buildings C and D, located along the east property line adjacent to the mobile home park. D. Parking lot sweeping, landscape maintenance, or other exterior activities that make noise shall be limited to the hours of 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. weekdays. LANDSCAPING Landscaping Plan: Landscaping plan indicating type and size of plant material and location and design of the irrigation system to be submitted to the Planning Department and approved by the Site and Architectural Review Committee prior to issuance of building permits. The minimum size of trees and shrubs planted on-site, except as modified by conditions contained herein, shall be as follows: The applicant shall install forty-four (44) 36-inch trees and the remainder of all trees shall include fifty percent 24-inch box and filly percent 15-gallon sizes. Tree types for the parking area shall achieve a 30 foot height in their canopy. B. Shrubs shall be a minimum of 5 gallons with the exception of accent shrubs that may be a minimum of 1 gallon. C. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit a tree protection plan shall be submitted for all retained trees on the site. The landscape plan shall comply with the City's Water Efficient Landscape Standards (WELS). A WELS checklist shall be submitted with the final landscape plan. (Planning) Screening of Mobile Home Park and project Entrance: The applicant shall install a minimum six foot pre-cast concrete or concrete block wall along the east property line adjacent to the mobi. le home park and north property line adjacent to the apartments. Walls at the project entrance shall be not exceed 42 inches in height except for screening walls behind landscaped entry. Walls along the percolation ponds and in front of businesses shall be open or low and decorative less than 3.5 feet in height. The applicant shall submit a report from an acoustical engineer verifying that the height and the materials of the proposed fence provides adequate sound attenuation as recommended by the SEIR. Tree Retention and Removal: Applicant to submit a tree protection plan prior to any grading and clearing of the project site. Any trees to be removed shall be replaced consistent with the WELS standards for tree replacement. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3131 PD 96-06 - 535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 7 I5. 16. I7. 18. Utili _ty Boxes and Back-Flow Preventers: Applicant to submit a plan to the Planning Department, prior to installation of PG&E transformer boxes and San Jose Water Company back-flow prevention devises, indicating the location of the boxes and screening (if boxes are above ground) for approval of the CDD. (Planning) Equipment Screening: All mechanical equipment on roofs and all utility meters to be screened and approved by the CDD. (Planning) Roof Equipment: The applicant shall supply noise specifications for all mechanical equipment proposed. The applicant shall supply an updated noise study to verify that noise generated by the roof mounted equipment is not audible at the property line shared with existing residential uses and that the equipment complies with the following: A. The Campbell Noise Element standards. B. Should the noise level exceed Campbell standards, the noise report shall specify mitigation measures.(Planning) Utili _ty Connections: Plans submitted to the Building Division for plan check shall indicate clearly the location of all connections for underground utilities including water, storm and sewer, electric, telephone and television cables, etc. (Building) 19. Construction Hours and Dust Mitigation: 20. 21. A. Hours of construction shall be limited to 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, unless an exception is granted by the Building Official. B. The construction site shall be sprinkled with water as necessary, but not less than twice per day to control dust. C. Haul tracks and material stockpiles shall be covered. D. The construction area and surrounding streets shall be swept as necessary but not less than once daily. (Planning) Sewer: Comply with requirements of the West Valley Sanitation District for sewer hook up and utilities. (Planning) Non-Point Discharge Elimination Systems fNPDE$) Permit: Applicant is advised that the Regional Water Quality Control Board will require that all construction on sites larger than five acres will require the project to be covered by an NPDES permit. Permit conditions may require construction and post-construction storm water management plans. The applicant is responsible for obtaining this permit and paying associated fees and providing plans as required. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3131 PD 96-06 - 535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 6 STREET/SITE IMPROVEMENTS parking and Driveways: All driveways and parking areas to be improved in compliance with Chapter 21.50 of the Campbell Municipal Code o Lighting Plan: Lighting from the site shall not spill over to adjoining properties. A lighting plan, indicating that lighting will not spill over to the adjoining properties, shall be submitted to the Planning Department and approved by the Community Development Director (CDD)prior to the issuance of building permits. (Planning) Soils and Geologic Report: A soils and geologic report shall be submitted to the Planning Department and Public Works Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. The report shall include the investigation of the site's potential for surface rupture, ground acceleration and liquefaction. The study shall recommend measures to reduce the potential for seismic hazards. (Public Works) PROPERTY MANAGEMENT/UTILITIES 10. Property Maintenance: Before, during and after construction, the site shall be kept free of weeds, trash and litter.(Planning) 11. Garbage Collection: Ordinance No. 782 of the Campbell Municipal Code stipulates that any contract for the collection and disposal of refuse, garbage, wet garbage and rubbish produced within the limits of the City of Campbell shall be made with Green Valley Disposal Company. This requirement applies to all single-family dwellings, multiple- family dwellings and all commercial, business, industrial, manufacturing and construction establishments. (Fire) 12. Trash Containers: Trash storage method(s) of a size and quality necessary to serve the development shall be located in area(s) approved by the Fire Department. Any enclosure(s) located outside the building and loading area shall consist of a concrete floor surrounded by a solid wall or fence and have self-closing doors of a size specified by the Fire Department. All enclosures to be constructed at grade level and have a level area adjacent to the trash enclosure area to service these containers. (Fire/Planning) PUBLIC SAFETY/WELFARE 13. Handicapped Requirements: Applicant shall comply with all appropriate State and City requirements for the handicapped. (Building) 14. Underground Utilities: Underground utilities to be provided as required by Section 20.36.150 of the Campbell Municipal Code. (Public Works) Planning Commission Resolution No. 3131 PD 96-06 - 535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 7 15. 16. 17. 18. Utility Boxes and Back-Flow Preventers: Applicant to submit a plan to the Planning Department, prior to installation of PG&E transformer boxes and San Jose Water Company back-flow prevention devises, indicating the location of the boxes and screening (if boxes are above ground) for approval of the CDD. (Planning) Equipment Screeninm All mechanical equipment on roofs and all utility meters to be. screened and approved by the CDD. (Planning) Roof Equipment: The applicant shall supply noise specifications for all mechanical equipment proposed.. The applicant shall supply an updated noise study to verify that noise generated by the roof mounted equipment is not audible at the property line shared with existing residential uses and that the equipment complies with the following: A. The Campbell Noise Element standards. B. Should the noise level exceed Campbell standards, the noise report shall specify. mitigation measures.(Planning) Utili _ty Connections: Plans submitted to the Building Division for plan check shall indicate clearly the location of all connections for underground utilities including water, storm and sewer, electric, telephone and television cables, etc. (Building) 19. Gonstruction Hours and Dust Mitigation: 20. 21. A. Hours of construction shall be limited to 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, unless an exception is granted by the Building Official. B. The construction site shall be sprinkled with water as necessary, but not less than twice per day to control dust. C. Haul trucks and material stockpiles shall be covered. D. The construction area and surrounding streets shall be swept as necessary but not less than once daily. (Planning) Sewer: Comply with requirements of the West Valley Sanitation District for sewer hook up and utilities. (Planning) Non-Point Discharge Elimination Systems flq'PDES~ Permit: Applicant is advised that the Regional Water Quality Control Board will require that all construction on sites larger than five acres will require the project to be covered by an NPDES permit. Permit conditions may require construction and post-construction storm water management plans. The applicant is responsible for obtaining this permit and paying associated fees and providing plans as required. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3131 PD 96-06 - 535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 8 22. Signing Program: Applicant to submit a signage program plan for approval of the Community Development Director for the project site, prior to the installation of any signage. Signing program to provide details and criteria for all exterior project signage and to include the following: a. Off-site directional signage for the project at the project entry at McGlincey Lane. b. Building/tenant identification signage. All signage to comply with Chapter 21.53 of the Campbell Municipal Code. PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS 23. Map Requirements: Prior to issuance of any building permits for the site, the applicant shall prepare and submit a Final Tract Map for review by City Engineer and recordation upon City approval. The current fee for processing the Final Tract Map is $1,380 plus $25/lot. Applicant shall provide all documents as required for review and approval of the Final Map. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the applicant must provide evidence fi.om each utility and special district that they approve of the filing of the Final Map as submitted, that the easements shown on the map are adequate for each utility to serve the proposed development and that the procedure for abandonment of any existing easements is acceptable. 24. Dedication to City: Prior to approval of the final map, the applicant shall dedicate, acquire land for dedication and/or obtain dedications as necessary to accommodate construction of the required public street improvements for: the 45-foot public street access to McGlincey Lane; the 50-foot public street across the south end of the site; the right of way needed to construct the cul-de-sac and intersection at McGlincey Lane as shown on the approved tentative map; and the right of way/easements necessary (15 foot minimum) to construct the public storm drain system through the development and through the private Pasco de Palomas street. Applicant shall prepare all documents necessary to obtain the dedications and/or remove any existing easements, provide all information required for reviewing these documents and shall pay all costs associated with obtaining the required dedications and/or easements and recordation of these dedications. Should it be necessary for the City to implement eminent domain proceedings in order to obtain right-of-way, the applicant shall pay all costs associated with the condemnation proceedings, including attorney's fees. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the applicant must determine the adequacy of the existing storm drainage easement along Pasco de Palomas. If the existing easement is not adequate for construction of the proposed parallel/upsized storm drain fi.om the site to the existing system in Union Avenue, the applicant shall provide all documents necessary for the City to obtain this easement. These documents shall include all engineering plans, plats and descriptions of the easement required for construction of this storm drain facility. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3131 PD 96-06 - 535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 9 25. 26. 27. Storm Drain Area Fee: Prior to issuance of any building permits for the site, the applicant shall pay the required storm drain area fee of $2,500/acre. Grading and Drainage Plan: Prior to approval of the final map or issuance of any building permits for the site, the applicant shall conduct hydrology studies as necessary, prepare grading and drainage plans and pay fees required to obtain necessary grading permits for the site. Grading plans shall include the disposition of and abandonment of existing utility lines as necessary. Hydrology studies, grading and storm drainage plans shall include the public access road from McGlincey to the site. Storm drainage plans shall include existing invert and top of pipe elevations of the SCVWD culvert crossing the proposed roadway. Hydrology studies and storm drainage design shall include the drainage area bounded by Highway 17 to the west, Curtner Avenue to the south, the City limits to the east and the existing storm drain in McGlincey Lane easterly of the development to the north. The storm drainage plans for this drainage area shall include removal, replacement and/or installation of new storm lines as needed in McGlincey and Cristich Lanes to connect to a new and/or upsized storm drainage line required through the development, through the Pasco de Palomas private road and ultimately connecting to the existing storm drainage facilities in Union Avenue. Completion of this design is required to determine the appropriate size, location and invert elevations of the storm drainage facilities to be constructed on site that will allow for the future construction of the off-site storm drainage improvements in McGlincey Lane and Cristich Lane. The applicant shall be required to construct only the portions of this storm drainage facility that are on-site and the connection to the existing system in Union Avenue through the storm drain easement in Pasco de Palomas. The applicant shall provide a "stub-out" to Cristich Lane to allow for the future storm drain construction off-site. Standard Street Improvements: Prior to approval of the final map or issuance of any building permits for the site, the applicant shall prepare plans, pay fees, post securities and provide insurance as required to obtain an encroachment permit to construct public street improvements as required by the City Engineer. Public street improvement plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer licensed in the State of California and shall include: Construction of the 45-foot public street access to McGlincey Lane to include: 30-foot of asphalt concrete roadway; a standard marginal 5-foot sidewalk and a 5-foot landscaping strip along the west side of the street; a 5-foot landscaping strip along the east side of the street; no parking signs, signing and striping, standard curb and gutter, Planning Commission Resolution No. 3131 PD 96-06- 535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 10 storm drainage facilities and street lighting facilities along both sides of the street; construction of driveways as required for existing parcels; and all conforms necessary to accommodate the existing improvements on the parcels south of the proposed development. · Construction of a 50-foot right of way public street along the southern frontage of the property to include: 35-feet of asphalt concrete roadway; standard driveway approaches for the entrances to the development; a standard marginal 5-foot sidewalk; and a 10-foot Public Utilities Easement along the north side of the street; a 5-foot landscape strip and a 5-foot separated walk along the southern side of the street; no parking signs for the northern side of the street, signing and striping, standard curb and gutter, storm drainage facilities and street lighting along both sides of the street. All improvements shall be designed and constructed to allow future continuation of the improvements on Cristich Lane and an appropriate cul-de-sac terminus shall be designed and constructed at the western end of the new public street. · Construction of the intersection as shown on the approved tentative map and as directed by the City Engineer. Intersection improvements may include sidewalks,. handicap ramps, signing, striping and increased street widths as shown on the approved tentative map. · All streets and their intersections with access points to the site shall be designed to accommodate all track mining movements. Improvements at the west end of the new public street shall be constructed to allow for a future connection to Cristich Lane. Street trees shall be of a type that will not grow to encroach or interfere with public traffic. · Construction of a complete traffic signal system and equipment, signing, striping, utility relocation and related improvements to provide for signalization of the intersection of Union Avenue and McGlincey Lane. The traffic signal system and equipment shall include but not be limited to: vehicle detection equipment, traffic signal standards, street lighting and electrical services; pavement repair; signing and striping and other components as required by the City Traffic Engineer. · Reconfiguration of the intersection of McGlincey Lane and Curtner Avenue to provide for a free right mm lane from southbound McGlincey to westbound Curtner, a free lef~ turn from eastbound Curtner to northbound McGlincey and stop controls for westbound Curtner east of the intersection as directed by the City Engineer. Existing pavement in this intersection may need to be resurfaced to allow for the additional lanes and new striping pattern. · Provide signing, striping and pavement reconstruction at the intersection of McGlincey Land and the new public access road as necessary to provide lane configurations as directed by the City Engineer. · Construction of the storm drain facility extending from Cristich Lane through the development via storm drain easements to connect to the existing system in Union Avenue. Construction of storm drain facilities for all public streets including the public access road from McGlincey. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3131 PD 96-06 - 535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 11 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. Completion of Public Street Improvements: Prior to issuance of occupancy for the site, all public street improvements as required by the encroachment permit must be completed and accepted by the City Engineer and the applicant must provide the one-year maintenance security. Landscaping Maintenance Agreements: Prior to recordation of the final map, the applicant shall prepare and execute a landscape maintenance agreement requiring the development to post securities and maintain all landscaping, irrigation and irrigation facilities, walls and fences within all public areas, including the public access street to McGlincey Lane and the new public access road adjacent to the property. This agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to being executed by both parties and recorded by the City. Underground Utilities: All new on-site utilities shall be installed underground per Section 20.36.150 of the Campbell Municipal Code for any new or remodeled buildings or additions. Applicant shall comply with all plan submittals, permitting and fee requirements of the serving utility company. Applicant shall submit a Utility Coordination Plan and Schedule for approval by the City Engineer for installation of all utilities. The plan shall minimize the damage to all public facilities. Soils Report: Engineer Provide a soils report prepared by a registered Geotechnical or Civil Title Report: Provide a current Preliminary Title Report. Street Name: The final map shall contain the City-approved street name for the new public street. Storm Water Management: Comply with the Regional Water Quality Control Board's industrial storm water 'general permit and California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook, prepared by Storm Water Quality Task Force, Santa Clara Valley Water District. Coordination with Capital Improvement/Other Projects: Applicant shall coordinate with other city improvement projects within the vicinity. Location and installation of off-site improvements that may be required by other districts and utility companies shall be approved by the City. M0numentation: Prior to recording the Final Map, the applicant shall provide security guaranteeing the cost of setting all monuments as shown on the Final Map. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3131 PD 96-06 - 535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 12 37. 38. Street Improvement Agreement: Prior to the approval of the final map, the applicant shall execute a street improvement agreement and post securities to guarantee the installation of the required street improvements. Notification to Adjacent Properties: Prior to any construction activity on the development, applicant shall notify all adjacent properties, including the management of the adjacent mobile home park. Notification shall include a contact number for the developer which can be used by the property owners during construction should questions or problems arise. FIRE REQUIREMENTS 39. Required Fire Flow: Required fire flow for this project is 3500 GPM at 20 psi residual pressure for 3 hours. The required fire flow is not available f~om area water mains and fire hydrant(s) which are spaced at the required spacing. This figure based upon the largest of four proposed buildings (100,000 square feet) and with the construction type of Type III- Non Rated and the buildings being office type occupancies. Anything other than office will require flow re-computation. 40. Automatic Fire Sprinkler System Required: Buildings requiring a fire flow in excess of 2,000 GPM and/or in excess of two stories in height (35 Feet) shall be equipped throughout with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. The fire sprinkler systems shall be hydraulically designed per National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard #13, 1994 Edition. 41. Final Required Fire Flow: Required fire flow may be reduced up to 75% in buildings equipped with automatic fire sprinkler systems, but can be no less than 1500 GPM. Therefore, the final required fire flow is 1500 GPM at 20 psi. residual pressure. This flow shall be taken from any two fire hydrants, on or near the site so long as they are spaced at a maximum spacing of 250 feet. 42. Public Fire Hydrant(s) Required: Provide 4 public fire hydrant(s) at location(s) to be determined jointly by the Fire Department and the San Jose Water Company. Maximum hydrant spacing shall be 250 feet and the minimum single flow hydrant shall be 1500 GPM at 20 psi. residual pressure. 43. Fire Apparatus (Ladder Truck) Access Roads Required: Provide access roadways with a paved all weather surface and a minimum unobstructed width of 30 feet, vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, minimum circulating turning radius of 50 feet outside and 35 feet inside, a maximum slope of 10% and vehicle loading of 75,000 pounds. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3131 PD 96-06 - 535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 13 44. Fire Ladder Truck Set Up Area(s) Option: Provide Fire Department Ladder Truck Set Up Areas with a minimum unobstructed width of 20 feet and a minimum length of 60 feet. Area shall support 75,000 pounds of gross vehicle weight. Area shall be paved or other engineered surfaces may be used with Fire Department approval. Note: A minimum of two locations per building is needed if this option is exercised. 45. Parking Along Roadways: The required width of fire access roadways shall not be obstructed in any manner. Parking shall not be allowed along roadways less than 28 feet in width. Parking will be allowed along one side of the street for roadways 28-35 feet in width. For roadways equal to or greater than 36 feet, parking will be allowed on both sides of the roadway. Roadway widths shall be measured face to face of curb. Parking spaces are based on an 8 foot wide space. 46, Fire Lane Marking Required: Provide marking for all roadways within the project. Markings shall be per fire department specifications. Installations shall also conform to Local Government Standards and Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications A- 6. Note: This will apply to portions of Cristieh Lane as well as "on-site." 47. Timing of Required Roadway Installations: Required Roadway installations shall be in place, inspected and accepted by the Fire Department prior to the start of roof construction. Bulk combustible construction materials may not be delivered to the construction site until installations are completed as stated above. Note: Tilt-up construction may occur prior to roadway installation. 48. Timing of Required Hydrant Installations: Required Hydrant(s) installations shall be in Place, inspected and accepted by the Fire Department prior to the start of roofing construction. Bulk combustible construction materials may not be delivered to the construction site until installations are completed as stated above. Note: Tilt-up construction may occur prior to water system installation. 49. Fire Department Key Box Required: Provide an approved fire department key box and appropriate building keys for each building. Installations shall conform with Fire District Standard Detail and Specification K-1. 50. Emergency Gate/Access Gate Requirements: When open, gates shall not obstruct any portion of the required access roadway or driveway width. If provided, all locks shall be fire department approved. Installations shall conform with Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications G-1. 51. Location of Required Fire Protection System(s) Equipment: Location of Fire Hydrants, Fire Sprinkler System(s) Post Indicator Valves (PIV), Fire Department Connections (FDC) and Fire Alarm Equipment shall be coordinated with the Fire Department and the Project Planners. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3131 PD 96-06 - 535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlineey Lane Page 14 52. Fire Sprinkler System Alarm Device Monitoring Required: Provide approved type monitoring for all fire sprinkler system alarm devices for each building. 53. Required Plans and Documentation: Final Written Plan for Project Phasing shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review. 54. Location of Fire Hydrants: Location of some fire hydrants will be required. Contact the Fire Department for details. 55. Through Connection to Cristich and Union: A emergency access connection shall be provided to the existing Cristich Lane fi.om the new "Public Street." Secondary access shall be provided fi.om the 295 Union Avenue access. Once permanent public improvement is made to Cristich Lane, the Union Avenue access point shall remain as the third access point. Emergency access driveways shall be gated and designated as "Fire Access Only." 56. Secondary_ Access Required: Provide a secondary access point. Installations and Design of Secondary Access shall conform to Fire Department Standard Details and Specification A-4. Should secondary access not be immediately attainable to Standard A-4 specifications, apply in writing for variance through this department. 57. Required Plans and Permits: Plans for fire apparatus access roads and fire hydrant systems shall be submitted to the Fire District for review and approval prior to construction. Permits are required for the installation of all Private Water Supply, Tank and Hydrant Systems and must be issued to contractors prior to the start of installation of such systems. 58. Emergency Vehicle Egress Access Easements: Emergency Vehicle Egress Access easements (EVEA) shall be granted and recorded to the fire department for emergency egress. 59. Private Fire Hydrant(s) Required: Provide 14 private on-site fire hydrant(s) installed per NFPA Std. #24, at location(s) to be determined by the Fire Department. Maximum hydrant spacing shall be 250 feet and the minimum single flow hydrant shall be 1500 GPM at 20 psi residual pressure. Prior to design, the project civil engineer shall meet with the fire department water supply officer to jointly spot the hydrant locations. 60. Botts Dots: All fire hydrants shall be identified in the proximate roadway with blue Botts Dots. MISCELLANEOUS REQLEREMENTS 61. Graffiti: Any graffiti occurring on the exterior of buildings shall be removed within one week of its appearance or request for removal by the City and the applicant/property owner will make a best effort to seal off, landscape screen or other methods to discourage future Planning Commission Res~_.,tion No. 3131 PD 96-06 - 535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 15 access or visibility for graffiti taggers. 62. Future Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge Easement: Record a covenant obligating the applicant and subsequent property owners to provide an easement for a future pedestrian/bicycle bridge to connect the new public street to the Los Gatos Creek Trail over Highway 17. 63. Weekend Access to Parking Lot for Public Using the Park: An agreement will be in place which will allow the public using the park to park their vehicles on the private parking lot on weekends. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 28~ day of October, 1997, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Commissioners: Commissioners: Commissioners: Commissioners: Gibbons, Keams, Lowe, Meyer-Kennedy Jones Lindstrom None APPROVED: Susan A. Keams, Chair ATTEST: Steve Piasecki, Secretary RESOLUTION NO. 3132 BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP (TS 97-01) TO ALLOW THE CREATION OF 4 LOTS AND A REMAINDER LOT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 535 WESTCHESTER DRIVE AND 571 McGLINCEY LANE. APPLICATION OF MR. KEN NEUMEISTER, ON BEHALF OF WTA DEVELOPMENT AND HEUTTIG & SCHROMM, INC. FILE NO. TS 97-01. After notification and public hearing, as specified by law, and after presentation by the Community Development Staff, proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed. After due consideration of all evidence presented, the Planning Commission did find as follows with respect to application TS 97-01. The proposed lots are of sufficient size and shape to accommodate the intended mixed USeS The proposed map is consistent with the Planned Development Application (PD 96-06) which has been recommended for approval subject tO the proposed conditions of approval. The proposed subdivision layout provides sufficient open space to accommodate the intended users of the facility and the surrounding area with inclusion of a 4.0 acre public open space area. The design of the proposed subdivision allows for the appropriate grading and drainage facilities, public utility easements, improvement of utilities, and private driveway and access easements necessary to serve these properties. The 1996 SEIR and its addendum prepared for the development of the project identifies the impacts associated with the development of this site with four industrial buildings Absent the easement, the development of the industrial park would impede access to and from the existing and proposed recreation areas in the City of Campbell. Based on the foregoing findings of fact, the Planning Commission further finds and concludes that, subject to the imposed conditions: The proposed subdivision is consistent with the policies and intent of the recommended General Plan Amendment. The proposed subdivision does not impair the balance between the housing needs of the region and the public service needs of the residents and available fiscal and environmental resources; The site is physically suitable for the proposed type of development and the proposed lot pattern. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3132 TS 97-01 - 535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 2 The design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities. o The subdivision of the property does not alter the intensity or impacts of the project as examined in the SEIR previously certified by the City Council on January 7, 1997, and as discussed in the addendum, the revised project presents a less intensive use than the original project. o There is no substantial evidence that the subdivision of the property, in-and-of itself, may have a significant effect on the environment. The subdivision of the property will not substantially change the proposed project from that examined in the SEIR in any way that would involve new significant environmental effects or a substantially increase the severity of any previously identified significant effects. o The subdivision of the property will not substantially change the circumstances under which the project is undertaken in a way which would involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. The subdivision of the property does not present any new information not previously known at the time the SEIR was certified that would indicate that: a. The project will have any significant effects not previously discussed in the SEIR, or b. That any effects will be substantially more severe; or c. That mitigation measures found not to be feasible would not be feasible; or d. That mitigation measures or alternatives exist that are considerably different from those analyzed in the SEIR. 10. The subdivision does not require any minor additions or changes to the SEIR or its addendum. The applicants are hereby notified, as part of this application, that they are required to meet the following conditions in accordance with the Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the State of California. The lead dep.artment with which the applicant will work is identified. Additionally, the applicants are hereby notified that they are required to comply with all applicable Codes and Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the State of California that pertain to this development and are not contained herein. PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS Map Requirements: Prior to issuance of any building permits for the site, the applicant shall prepare and submit a Final Tract Map for review by City Engineer and recordation upon City approval. The current fee for processing the Final Tract Map is $1,380 plus Planning Commission Resolution No. 3132 TS 97-01 - 535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 3 o $25/lot. Applicant shall provide all documents as required for review and approval of the Final M,ap. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the applicant must provide evidence from each utility and special district that they approve of the filing of the Final Map as submitted, that the easements shown on the map are adequate for each utility to serve the proposed development and that the procedure for abandonment of any existing easements is acceptable. Dedication to Ci _ty: Prior to approval of the final map, the applicant shall dedicate, acquire land for dedication and/or obtain dedications as necessary to accommodate construction of the required public street improvements for: the 45-foot public street access to McGlincey Lane; the 50-foot public street across the south end of the site; the right of way needed to construct the cul-de-sac and intersection at McGlincey Lane as shown on the approved tentative map; and the right of way/easements necessary (15-foot minimum) to construct the public storm drain system through the development and through the private Pasco de Palomas street. Applicant shall prepare all documents necessary to obtain the dedications and/or remove any existing easements, provide all information required for reviewing these documents and shall pay all costs associated with obtaining the required dedications and/or easements and recordation of these dedications. Should it be necessary for the City to implement eminent domain proceedings in order to obtain right-of-way, the applicant shall pay all costs associated with the condemnation proceedings, including attorney's fees. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the applicant must determine the adequacy of the existing storm drainage easement along Pasco de Palomas. If the existing easement is not adequate for construction of the proposed parallel/upsized storm drain from the site to the existing system in Union Avenue, the applicant shall provide all documents necessary for the City to obtain this easement. These documents shall include all engineering plans, plats and descriptions of the easement required for construction of this storm drain facility. Storm Drain Area Fee: Prior to issuance of any building permits for the site, the applicant shall pay the required storm drain area fee of $2,500/acre. Grading and Drainage Plan: Prior to approval of the final map or issuance of any building permits for the site, the applicant shall conduct hydrology studies as necessary, prepare grading and drainage plans and pay fees required to obtain necessary grading permits for the site. Grading plans shall include the disposition of and abandonment of existing utility lines as necessary. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3132 TS 97-01 -535 Westchester Drive/571 MeGlincey Lane Page 4 Hydrology studies, grading and storm drainage plans shall include the public access road from McGlincey to the site. Storm drainage plans shall include existing invert and top of pipe elevations of the SCVWD culvert crossing the proposed roadway. Hydrology studies and storm drainage design shall include the drainage area bounded by Highway 17 to the west, Curtner Avenue to the south, the City limits to the east and the existing storm drain in McGlincey Lane easterly of the development to the north. The storm drainage plans for this drainage area shall include removal, replacement and/or installation of new storm lines as needed in McGlincey and Cristich Lanes to connect to a new and/or upsized storm drainage line required through the development, through the Pasco de Palomas private road and ultimately connecting to the existing storm drainage facilities in Union Avenue. Completion of this design is required to determine the appropriate size, location and invert elevations of the storm drainage facilities to be constructed on site that will allow for the future construction of the off-site storm drainage improvements in McGlincey Lane and Cristich Lane. The applicant shall be required to construct only the portions of this storm drainage facility that are on-site and the connection to the existing system in Union Avenue through the storm drain easement in Pasco de Palomas. The applicant shall provide a "stub-out" to Cristich Lane to allow for the future storm drain construction off-site. Standard Street Improvements: Prior to approval of the final map or issuance of any building permits for the site, the applicant shall prepare plans, pay fees, post securities and provide insurance as required to obtain an encroachment permit to construct public street improvements as required by the City Engineer. Public street improvement plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer licensed in the State of California and shall include: · Construction of the 45-foot public street access to McGlincey Lane to include: 30-foot of asphalt concrete roadway; a standard marginal 5-foot sidewalk and a 5-foot landscaping strip along the west side of the street; a 5-foot landscaping strip along the east side of the street; no parking signs, signing and striping, standard curb and gutter, storm drainage facilities and street lighting facilities along both sides of the street; construction of driveways as required for existing parcels; and all conforms necessary to accommodate the existing improvements on the parcels south of the proposed development. · Construction of a 50-foot right of way public street along the southern frontage of the property to include: 35-feet of asphalt concrete roadway; standard driveway approaches for the entrances to the development; a standard marginal 5-foot sidewalk; and a 10-foot Public Utilities Easement along the north side of the street; a 5-foot landscape strip and a 5-foot separated walk along the southern side of the street; no parking signs for the northern side of the street, signing and striping, standard curb and Planning Commission Resolution No. 3132 TS 97-01 - 535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 5 o gutter, storm drainage facilities and street lighting along both sides of the street All improvements shall be designed and constructed to allow future continuation of the improvements on Crisfieh Lane and an appropriate cul-de-sac terminus shall be designed and constructed at the western end of the new public street. · Construction of the intersection as shown on the approved tentative map and as directed by the City Engineer. Intersection improvements may include sidewalks, handicap ramps, signing, striping and increased street widths as shown on the approved tentative map. All streets and their intersections with access points to the site shall be designed to accommodate all truck turning movements. Improvements at the west end of the new public street shall be constructed to allow for a future connection to Cristieh Lane. Street trees shall be of a type that will not grow to encroach or interfere with public traffic. · Construction of a complete traffic signal system and equipment, signing, striping, utility relocation and related improvements to provide for signalization of the intersection of Union Avenue and McGlincey Lane. The traffic signal system and equipment shall include but not be limited to: vehicle detection equipment, traffic signal standards, street lighting and electrical services; pavement repair; signing and striping and other components as required by the City Traffic Engineer. · Reconfiguration of the intersection of MeGlincey Lane and Curtner Avenue to provide for a free right mm lane from southbound McGlincey to westbound Curmer, a free left turn from eastbound Curtner to northbound McGlincey and stop controls for westbound Curmer east of the intersection as directed by the City Engineer. Existing pavement in this intersection may need to be resurfaced to allow for the additional lanes and new striping pattern. · Provide signing, striping and pavement reconstruction at the intersection of McGlincey Land and the new public access road as necessary to provide lane configurations as directed by the City Engineer. · Construction of the storm drain facility extending from Cristich Lane through the development via storm drain easements to connect to the existing system in Union Avenue. Construction of storm drain facilities for all public streets including the public access road from McGlincey. Completion of Public Street Improvements: Prior to issuance of occupancy for the site, all public street improvements as required by the encroachment permit must be completed and accepted by the City Engineer and the applicant must provide the one-year maintenance security. Landscaping Maintenance Agreements: Prior to recordation of the final map, the applicant shall prepare and execute a landscape maintenance agreement requiring the development to post securities and maintain all landscaping, irrigation and irrigation facilities, walls and fences within all public areas, including the public access street to Planning Commission Resolution No. 3132 TS 97-01 - 535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 6 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. McGlincey Lane and the new public access road adjacent to the property. This agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to being executed by both parties and recordeci by the City. Underground Utilities: All new on-site utilities shall be installed underground per Section 20.36.150 of the Campbell Municipal Code for any new or remodeled buildings or additions. Applicant shall comply with all plan submittals, permitting and fee requirements of the serving utility company. Applicant shall submit a Utility Coordination Plan and Schedule for approval by the City Engineer for installation of all utilities. The plan shall minimize the damage to all public facilities. Soils Report: Engineer Provide a soils report prepared by a registered Geotechnical or Civil Title Report: Provide a current Preliminary Title Report. Street Name: The final map shall contain the City-approved street name for the new public street. Storm Water Management: Comply with the Regional Water Quality Control Board's industrial storm water general permit and California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook, prepared by Storm Water Quality Task Force, Santa Clara Valley Water District. Coordination with Capital Improvement/Other Projects: Applicant shall coordinate with other city improvement projects within the vicinity. Location and installation of off-site improvements that may be required by other districts and utility companies shall be approved by the City. Monumentation: Prior to recording the Final Map, the applicant shall provide security guaranteeing the cost of setting all monuments as shown on the Final Map. Street Improvement Agreement: Prior to the approval of the final map, the applicant shall execute a street improvement agreement and post securities to guarantee the installation of the required street improvements. Notification to Adjacent Properties: Prior to any construction activity on the development, applicant shall notify all adjacent properties, including the management of the adjacent mobile home park. Notification shall include a contact number for the developer which can be used by the property owners during conslxuction should questions or problems arise. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3132 TS 97-01 -535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 7 FIRE DEPARTMENT CONDITION 17. Emergency Vehicle Egress Access Easements: Emergency Vehicle Egress Access easements (EVEA) shall be granted and recorded to the fire department for emergency egress. PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITION 18. Future Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge Easement: Record a covenant obligating the applicant and subsequent property owners to provide an easement for a future pedestrian/bicycle bridge to connect the new public street to the Los Gatos Creek Trail over Highway 17. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of October, 1997, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Commissioners: Commissioners: Commissioners: Commissioners: Gibbons, Keams, Lowe, Meyer-Kennedy Jones Lindstrom None APPROVED: Susan A. Keams, Chair ATTEST: Steve Piasecki, Secretary I ; / I / / Planning Commission Minutes of October 28, 1997 Page 8 Site and Architectural Approval (S 9%21) to allow the construction of a 3,002 square foot, two-story, single-family residence on a flag lot located at 1775 W. Hacienda Avenue in an R-l-9 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District. with the requirement for two additional trees (for a total of four new trees) along the townhouse development property line in consultation with the adjoining neighbors and, if necessary, with SARC, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Gibbons, Jones, Kearns, Lowe, Meyer-Kennedy NOES: None ABSENT: Lindstrom ABSTAIN: None Community Development Director Steve Piasecki advised that this decision is final, unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 days. Commissioner Jones asked for a short break before continuing with Agenda Item No. 1. Chairperson Kearns called for a break at 8:10 p.m. Chairperson Keams reconvened the meeting at 8:17 p.m. Chairwoman Keams read Agenda Item No. 1 into the record: GP 96-02/PD 96-06/ TS 97-01/S 97-05 Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Ken Neumeister, on behalf of WTA Development & Huettig & Schromm, Inc., for approval of the following applications for property located at 535 Westchester Drive (formerly the Winchester Drive-In Site) in a PD (Planned Development) Zoning District and 571 McGlincey Lane in an M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District: A. A General Plan Amendment (GP 96-02) to consider a change in the Land Use Element of the General Plan from Destination Commercial to Industrial (2. 19.5 acres) and Public/Semi-Public (4 acres). B. A Planned Development Permit (PD 96-06) to allow the construction of a 280,000 square foot research and development park and a four acre park. A Vested Tentative Subdivision Map (TS 97-01) to allow the creation of five lots. A Site and Architectural Approval (S 97-05) to allow the construction of two off-premise signs and landscaping at the McGlincey Lane entrance to the site. Co An Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Planning Commission Minutes of October 28, 1997 Page 9 Report, certified by City Council in January 1997, has been prepared analyzing thc impact of designating four acres of this site as a public park and reducing the total building square foOtage fi.om 330,000 square feet to 280,000 square feet. Chairwoman Keams presented meeting ground rules as follows: · Advised that there are green cards for completion by audience members wishing to address the Commission regarding this project. · Reminded that four hearings were held in April and May before the project was sent to Council. · Council referred the project back to the Planning Commission with the requirement for a four acre park component. The Planning Commission is being asked to review the current proposal and provide a recommendation back to Council. Advised that testimony would be limited to three minutes and asked speakers to be brief and to the point. Don't repeat the same message. Provide new information. Advised that she has also asked staffto be brief. Suggested that should the audience wish to concur with a point made, they can raise their hand. The Commission can see the support. Asked that all speakers be treated with respect. Outlined the order of the meeting as follows: with a staff report, applicant statement, audience comments, applicant response to audience questions, the close of the public hearing and the rendering of a decision. The meeting will conclude no later than 11 p.m. Mr. Tim J. Haley, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows: · The Commission forwarded a recommendation to Council last Spring to approve the General Plan Amendment to change the land use of a portion of the property from Destination Commercial to Industrial and the provision of a minimum four acre open space. · The Commission also recommended denial of the Development Applications because they did not incorporate any open space. On June 17, 1997, the Council considered the project and referred it back to the Planning Commission. This project was re-advertised to incorporate a four acre park. The proposed four acre open space is located at the southerly portion of the site. It is crescent shape and is located adjacent to the percolation ponds. The applicant has eliminated one building, reducing fi'om five to four. The square footage reduced 15% fi.om 330,000 to 280,000. The proposed parking ratio is 1:261. The required ratio is 1:250. Staffis comfortable with the parking ratio of 1:261, finding it reasonable for a project of this size. Landscaping provided is 30% where previously it had been 27%. Including the public open space, landscaping represents 43% of the site. This includes hardscape areas. Staff is recommending that the Commission take the following action: Planning Commission Minutes of October 28, 1997 Page 10 1. Review the Environmental Impact Report and Supplemental EIR adopted last year and then re-certify the Supplemental EIR and certify the Addendum to the SEIR. 2. Adopt a Resolution recommending the General Plan Amendment (GP 96-02). 3. Adopt a Resolution recommending approval of the Planned Development Permit to allow a 280,000 square foot, Research and Development Park, including the amendments to the Conditions of Approval as outlined in staff's memo distributed at the start of this meeting. 4. Adopt a Resolution recommending approval of the Tentative Subdivision Map. 5. Adopt a Resolution recommending approval of a Site Application to allow off-site signage at the entrance of this project. Advised that SARC reviewed the project and will provide its report. Advised that other City personnel and consultants are available for questions including: Redevelopment Manger, Kirk Heirn-ichs; Environmental Manager, Bill Helms; Traffic Engineer, Peter Eakland; Environmental Consultant, Valerie Young; and the project architect and applicant, Ken Neumeister. Commissioner Lowe asked what percentage is represented by the elimination of one building. Mr. Tim J. Haley responded that it represents 50,000 square feet and a 15% reduction. Commissioner Gibbons asked if the public street is counted in the open space. Mr. Tim J. Haley advised that the public street is totally separate from open space. The landscape figure for the site does not include the park or the public street. Commissioner Gibbons asked how the square footage is still so high with the elimination of four acres from the project as well as two acres for the public roadway. Mr. Tim J. Haley advised that there is a higher percentage of two story buildings with the reconfigured project. Instead of three of five buildings being two story, now it is three of four. Commissioner Gibbons wondered what the floor area ratio was for this project before. It is now 21%. Mr. Tim J. Haley advised that this figure shows up in the staff report. Commissioner Lowe presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: · SARC met on October 16, 1997, and found that with the four acre open space area, a reasonable compromise has been reached. · SARC is supportive of the project with refinements of the building elevations. Chairwoman Kearns opened the Public Heating for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Gordon Reynolds, 3293 Valley Square Lane, San Jose: Planning Commission Minutes of October 28, 1997 Page 11 · Questioned parking proposed for the site. · Read from an article about the proposed addition at Pruneyard which will include 1,200 parking spaces, more than proposed for this larger project. · Asked the Commission to find out the impacts, including traffic and pollution. · Suggested that the Commission sit on this project. Mr. Ken Neumeister, Applicant: · Advised that this project has evolved. The project under consideration this evening is a compromise of all of the different visions. · Stated that he has been working on this project for one year and City staff longer than that. · Advised that he is available to answer any questions. Mr. Jack Petersen, 5084 Tifton Way, San Jose. · Advised that he has already lost four acres to the percolation ponds. · Stated that while he is in favor of the project, he is not in favor of any easement through his property. · Said that to date no one has contacted him about the easements. · Stated that he pays taxes on Wild Cat Lane which is the easement used to enter the Drive-In site. Mr. Tim J. Haley advised that Wild Cat Lane is the access road from McGlincey Lane. An easement is shared among the property owners on this private drive leading to the Drive-In Site. Commissioner Gibbons asked if the easements already exist. Is this to be a new road? Mr. Tim J. Haley answered that the private drive (Wild Cat Lane) will be converted to a public street. Admitted that he was not certain what impact this changeover would have on the other property owners. Mr. Ken Neumeister: · Stated that he has tried to contact Mr. Petersen. When the project was delayed in June, this issue got dropped. · Advised that the improvements to the road will not cost the other property owners. The developer of the Winchester Drive-In Site will pay for all of the improvements. · The Developer is willing to contribute to the majority of those costs. · They are foreseeing little if no direct cost of improvements to the owners of the easement. Commissioner Lowe asked if this is reasonable and legal. City Attorney William Seligmann advised that the process has not come to that issue. Mr. Kirk Heinrichs, Redevelopment Manager: Planning Commission Minutes of October 28, 1997 Page 12 Advised that there will be no cost for public street improvements to the owners and there will be no taking of additional property except for the existing private road which will be made into a public street. The Redevelopment Agency and the Developer will pay the costs. Ms. Susanne Waher, 1381 Estrellita Way, Campbell: · Showed a San Jose Mercury News Article where it is reported that the Open Space Authorii:y now is able to buy land for open space. · Reported on the Council's Open Space Study Session where the Council admitted to not being comfortable with using the 1990 Open Space Element to make decisions. · As a result of the Study Session, staff was asked to contact schools to determine actual open space available, to determine the impact of year round schooling and to discover how many sports leagues actually play in Campbell. It was determined that school fields are in terrible shape. It was discussed that Bucknall School has been sold and is no longer available as open space. · Quoted from the City's Satisfaction Survey Results which state that 43% of respondents want more athletic fields; 75% are willing to pay for more athletic fields; 76% support a teen center; 65% use John D. Morgan Park; 63% use Campbell Park; 53% use the Community Center, to name a few results. · Campbell needs more open space and more playing fields. · - Asked the Commission to support retaining the Winchester Drive-in Site as open space. · One option would be to use the area for a Senior Activity Center. This could be an imaginative use of space and would free space for youth activities at the Community Center. · Without land there is no opportunity, no options. Mr. Neal Locke, 200 N. Second Street, Campbell: · Advised that he has participated on the Winchester Drive-In Proceeds Committee which is looking at the best way to spend the money generated from the sale of the land. · It is believed that the funds available will be $2 million. Approximately $1 million is earmarked for small projects including trees, a Bobby Sox snack bar and a restroom at Rosemary. About $500,000 will be available to buy open space. This will not buy a whole lot. · Stated that the land for open space acquisition is not identified at this time. There is no clue as to where the land is for open space. A study is on-going. · The cost for needed open space is $27 million. · Asked the Commission to consider tabling this item until Council can identify where the replacement acreage is locate within the City. · The Country is in a position of unprecedented prosperity. · Suggested that the City consider land banking and to step back and consider. · Allow Council to complete their study. · Asked everyone to work together. Ms. Gametta Annable, 951 Dry Creek Road, Campbell: · Asked that consideration of this item be continued. Planning Commission Minutes of October 28, 1997 Page 13 · If the project proceeds, consider a longer term view of this site. · Consider the inclusion of an overpass from the Los Gatos Creek Trail to this site. · This will benefit all of Campbell and will allow foot traffic to reach the park. Mr. David Sausjord, 946 Norin Court, Campbell: · Stated that this has been a long process. · Things have changed for him personally including having his children involved in youth sports. He has learned of the difficulty in scheduling playing fields. · This is a wealthy society now with a strong sales tax base. · Union Avenue is already substandard. At the present time, there is no room on Union to install a bus stop. · With the success of Pruneyard and the potential for 1,200 more cars at the Drive-In Site, there will be traffic impacts. · Hamilton and Bascom already have the worse possible levels of service. The freeway is not that good in spite of the recent improvements. · These are additional reasons to reconsider this project. · Neighbors are very interested in open space. A package should be developed to preserve this property. Mr. Tom Quick, 1815 Greencreek Drive, San Jose: · The City has the opportunity to invest in children. · Participation in soccer has increased 42% in one year. · Hundreds of kids have to be driven over to Morgan Hill on Saturdays in order to play soccer. · It would be a mistake to pave over this site. · Cupertino recently converted a former school site, at high cost to the City, to create three soccer fields. · Soccer offers kids an alternative to television and Nitendo. · Sports facilities are good for kids in the community. · This is an oppommity. Don't squander it. Consider tabling this item. Commissioner Gibbons asked the size of a soccer field. Mr. Tom Quick replied that they are 105 yards by 60 yards or a total of two acres. Mr. Arvid Hansen, 14 La Paloma: · Stated that he represents the 170 residents of the Pasco de Palomas Mobile Home Park which is located adjacent to the Winchester Drive-In Site. · Said that this property is not convenient for youth access. · Stated that it is important for the City to recognize its fiscal responsibility including the generation of income to function. · Agrees that there is a need for ball parks but that they should be connected to schools. Planning Commission Minutes of October 28, 1997 Page 14 Mr. Leo Boyd, 945 Torero Plaza: · Said that the economics of the situation need to be assessed. · A study needs to be made on this project to determine the plus and minuses of this project and also to determine for what the money will be used. · Said that money is good but not in and of itself. · Asked if an economic study has been done. Ms. Merline Rasmusson, 9 La Paloma Street, Campbell: · Thanked the Commission for the oppommity to speak. · Asked the Commission to take advantage. · Stated that some of the funds raised should be used for the Campbell Community Center. · Agreed that kids need open space but not in this location. Chairwoman Keams closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Gibbons asked, by a show of hands, how many members of the audience were from Pasco de Palomas. Secondly, from Campbell. Commissioner Jones: · Stated that this is a unique situation where the City owns 23 acres. · This is public property now. · Campbell is small and land locked. · When the land is paved over, it is gone forever. · Agreed that this location is not the best for a park but stated that a lack of planning caused the situation where appropriate open space was not kept available. · Suggested that a study still needs to be conducted to identify where open space is now and where the City wants to be as far as open space, 20 years from now. · There is not that much open space. · Questioned whether an industrial park is the best use of this land. · Suggested that actually.more housing is needed as some people already have to commute to jobs in the valley from as far away as Tracy. · Stated that he would feel differently if a private party owned this land but the City already owns it. · Said that the total picture needs to be looked at. There is no reason to rush into selling the property off. · Stated that he is against this application. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy: · Stated that she supports a four acre park and finds that this is a very good compromise. · Said that she likes the layout. · Agreed that this is not the best place for open space, using the whole site as a park. · Stated that she is in support of this project. Planning Commission Minutes of October 28, 1997 Page 15 Commissioner Lowe: · Stated that he has served on the Commission now for five years. · This is the toughest decision he has had to face to date. · Reminded that he serves on the Commission as a volunteer who is eager to do service for his community. · Agreed that the public needs open space. · Admitted that while the site stood vacant for more that 15 years, nothing was done to mm it into a park. · The applicant was provided with feedback from the Commission, Council and SARC. The applicant subsequently came back in good faith with a compromise proposal. · Stated that he will support the project as it has been modified. Commissioner Gibbons:· Stated that she appreciated staffs efforts in preparing material for this project in advance. · Said that she appreciated the comments of those in attendance. · Stated that the Commission had made recommendations to Council and the Applicant for some open space with this development project. · This proposed use will facilitate and enhance the area. · Said that she will support the land use of industrial with four acres of open space. · Expressed some disappointment with the design and stated that she will be making some recommendations for modifications to the conditions of approval. · Stated that she will support the project. Chairwoman Keams: · Agreed that this is a good compromise. · The developer had gone back to the drawing board. · She supports the revised project, finding it appropriate for the area. · Stated that she is happy with the four acre park. Commissioner Jones reminded the Commission that the request from the Planning Commission was for four to seven acres of open space. He asked who would be responsible for the development and later maintenance of this park. Community Development Director Steve Piasecld advised that a process similar to that used in developing Jack Fischer Park will include Parks and Recreation Commission Heatings. At that time, the development of the type of park and its uses will be determined. The City is most likely to develop and maintain the park. Commissioner Lowe supported the idea to explore public access through a pedestrian bridge over Highway 17 to this new park. Community Development Director Steve Piasecld advised that such a bridge would cost about $1 million. The developer cannot be asked to pay this cost as it cannot be determined that the Planning Commission Minutes of October 28, 1997 Page 16 proposed use of this site created the need for this bridge. The right-of-way would have to be obtained and the funding secured. Commissioner Lowe asked if this could be added. City Attorney William Seligmann advised that findings would be required. Commissioner Lowe advised that he is simply seeking an easement to allow the placement of this pedestrian bridge. Community Development Director Steve Piasecki suggested that this requirement be fonvarded to Council as a side issue, utilizing minute action. If findings can be developed, this could be included as a Condition of Approval. Commissioner Gibbons agreed that this facility did not generate the need for a park and therefore this cannot be made a condition on the project. Commissioner Lowe admitted that he felt strongly about the condition for an easement to allow the pedestrian bridge in the future. Commissioner Gibbons: · Supported Commissioner Lowe's wish for an easement for the pedestrian bridge. · Provided comments about the landscaping requirements. She wants all removed trees replaced with 36-inch box trees instead of the required 24-inch. Mr. Tim J. Haley advised that the applicant is required to replace removed trees with 24-inch box. Forty-four trees will be removed from the site to be replaced with 88 trees. Of these 88 trees, 44 are to be replaced with 24-inch box and the remaining trees are 15-gallon. Commissioner Gibbons stated that she wants 44 trees replaced with 36-inch box and the remaining trees to be one-half 15-gallon and one-half 24-inch box. She also asked that the trees selected for the parking lot provide a 30-foot canopy after approximately eight years. Mr. Tim J. Haley said that this could be taken into consideration with the review of the landscaping plan. Commissioner Gibbons added that she recommends that after every 25 parking stalls along the perimeter a tree and landscaping be installed to break up the hardscape. She asked about the landscaping calculations. What is counted? Mr. Tim J. Haley replied that sidewalks and hardseape plazas are counted but areas such as driveways are not. Commissioner Gibbons suggested reducing the parking ratio to allow a larger percentage of landscape area. She want to see 30% landscaping exclusive of any walk'ways. Fountains, plazas Planning Commission Minutes of October 28, 1997 Page 17 can be counted but not sidewalks. Asked whether the traffic issue can be revisited after Building Three has been constructed but before building permits are issued for Building Four. Mr. Tim J. Haley advised that staff has determined that there are no significant impacts envisioned as a result of this project. Commissioner Gibbons stated that she is not comfortable with that assumption and would like to see if additional mitigation measures might be needed. Mr. Tim J. Haley advised that he is not certain that this is possible. City Attorney William Seligmann advised that the Commission would have to be much more specific. Commissioner Gibbons stated that she thought that additional mitigation measures could be imposed if the traffic study does not hold up after the first three buildings are constructed and occupied. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy stated that these measures are addressed in the EIR. Commissioner Lowe stated that the Commission has to trust the Traffic Report. Commissioner Gibbons asked what if the levels of service decrease below what was anticipated. Mr. Tim J. Haley advised that to make such a requirement would require a traffic analysis every time the applicant seeks building permits. Commissioner Gibbons proposed a reduction in the parking ratio. Instead of 1:261, she suggested 1:280. This would reduce parking spaces by 100 and allow more landscape area. She also recommended that public parking be allowed during weekends by those using the park. Mr. Tim J. Haley advised that there will be one lane of parking provided alongside the park. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy, seconded by Commissioner Gibbons, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3128 recommending the Recertification of the Environmental Impact Report, the Certification of the Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report and the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations, on property located at 535 Westchester Drive and 571 McGlincey Lane, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Gibbons, Kearns, Lowe, Meyer-Kennedy Jones Lindstrom None Planning Commission Minutes of October 28, 1997 Page 18 ABSENT: Lindstrom ABSTAIN: None Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy, seconded by Commissioner Gibbons, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3129 recommending approval of a General Plan Amendment (GP 96-02) changing the Land Use designation for 19.58 acres from Commercial Destination to Industrial and 4 acres from Commercial Destination to Public/Semi-Public, on property located at 535 Westchester Drive, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Gibbons, Kearns, Lowe, Meyer-Kennedy NOES: Jones ABSENT: Lindstrom ABSTAIN: None Motion: Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy, seconded by Commissioner Gibbons, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3130 recommending approval of a Site and Architectural Application (S 97-05) to allow the construction of two off-premise signs and landscaping at the McGlincey Lane entrance to the site, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Gibbons, Kearns, Lowe, Meyer-Kennedy NOES: Jones ABSENT: Lindstrom ABSTAIN: None Upon motion of Commissioner Gibbons, seconded by Commissioner Meyer- Kennedy, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3131 recommending approval of a Planned Development Permit (PD 96-06) to allow the construction of a 280,000 square foot research and development park and a four acre park on property located at 535 Westchester Drive and 571 McGlincey Lane, with the following changes: 1. Adjust parking ratio from 1:261 to 1:280; 2. Increase landscaping to 30%, including the provision of landscaping areas every 25 parking stalls along the perimeter of the parking lot and the selection of trees that will develop a 30-foot wide canopy throughout the parking lot after eight years; 3. Increase replacement tree size to forty-four 36-inch trees, and the remaining trees fifty percent 24-inch box trees and fifty percent 15-gallon trees. 4. Provide an easement to allow the future construction of a pedestrian bridge over Highway 17 to the site; and Planning Commission Minutes of October 28, 1997 Page 19 5. Allow public parking on the private parking lot on weekends for people using the park. by the following roll call vote: AYES: Gibbons, Kearns, Lowe, Meyer-Kennedy NOES: Jones ABSENT: Lindstrom ABSTAIN: None City Attorney Seligmann provided the supporting finding for the requirement for an easement as follows, "Absent the easement, the development of the industrial park would impede access to and from the existing and proposed recreation areas in the City of Campbell." Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Gibbons, seconded by Commissioner Meyer- Kennedy, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3132 recommending approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map (TS 97-01) to allow the creation of five lots on property located at 535 Westchester Drive and 571 McGlincey Lane with the added requirement for the provision of an easement for the future installation of a pedestrian bridge across Highway 17 and including the supporting finding for the need for that easement, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Gibbons, Kearns, Lowe, Meyer-Kennedy Jones Lindstrom None REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR The written report of Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director, was accepted as presented. · Advised that he has not received any feedback from the Commission regarding a policy for absences from Commission meetings. · Reminded the Commission that SARC will meet on Thursday, October 30, 1997, at 5 p.m., with two items for revi'ew. Commissioner Gibbons suggested that three consecutive unexcused absences would be cause for dismissal. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 10:15p.m. to the Planning Commission meeting of November 11, 1997, in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California. Item No. 1 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 28, 1997 GP 96-02/PD 96-06/ TS 97-01/S 97-05 Neumeister, K. Public hearing to consider the application of Mr. Ken Neumeister, on behalf of WTA Development and Huettig & Schromm, Inc., for approval of the following applications for property located at 535 Westchester Drive (formerly the Winchester Drive-In Site) in a PD (Planned Development) Zoning District and 571 McGlincey Lane in an M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District: A. A General Plan Amendment (GP 96-02) to consider a change in the Land Use Element of the General Plan from Destination Commercial to Industrial for approximately 19.58 acres and to Public/Semi Public for 4 acres. B. A Planned Development Permit (PD 96-06) to allow the construction of a 280,000 square foot research and development business park on 19.58 acres and the designation of 4 acres as public open space. C. A Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (TS 97-01) to allow the creation of four lots and a remainder lot designated for public open space. D. A Site and Architectural Approval (S 97-05) to allow the construction of two off-premise signs and landscaping at the McGlincey Lane entrance to the site. E. Re-certification of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR 1996) and certification of the Addendum for the Revised Project. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission take the following actions: Adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council RE-CERTIFY the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) and CERTIFY the Addendum for the project, evaluating the designation of 19.5 acres for development of a 280,000 square foot Research & Development Park and a 4 acre public open space component and ADOPT a statement of overriding consideration for this project; and Adopt a Resolution, incorporating the attached findings, recommending that the City Council APPROVE General Plan Amendment (GP 96-02) changing the land use designation of 19.58 acres from Destination Commercial to Industrial and 4 acres from Destination Commercial to Public/Semi-Public, incorporating a map amendment and text changes in the Development Policies as provided in Attachment "A"(note that this recommendation incorporates a four acre open space component); and Planning Commission StaffReport for October 28, 1997 GP 96-02/PD 96-06/TS 97-01/S 97-05 -535 Westchester/571 McGlincey Page 2 Adopt a Resolution, incorporating the attached findings, recommending that the City Council APPROVE a Planned Development Permit (PD 96-06) allowing the construction of a 280,000 square foot research and development business park and designation of a public open space area of 4.0 acres, subject to the conditions of approval; and Adopt a Resolution, incorporating the attached findings, recommending that the City Council APPROVE a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (TS 97-01), subject to the conditions of approval; and. Adopt a Resolution, incorporating the attached findings, recommending that the City Council APPROVE a Site and Architectural Approval (S 97-05), which affects the entrance driveway area, subject to the attached conditions. BACKGROUND On May 27, 1997, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3089 recommending approval of an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General for the project site from Destination Commercial to Industrial for approximately 19.5 acres and to Public/Semi-Public for a minimum 4 acre open space component. The Commission additionally, adopted Resolution Nos. 3090, 3091 and 3092 recommending denial of the Planned Development Permit, the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map and the Site and Architectural Approval in that these development applications did not incorporate a 4 acre open space component. On June 17, 1997, the City Council considered the Planning Commission's recommendation to incorporate a four acre park as a part of the redevelopment of the Winchester Drive In site. The City Council took action at this meeting to refer this application back to the Planning Commission by taking the following actions: 1. Directed staff to work with the developer to redesign the project to accommodate a four acre neighborhood park adjacent to the percolation ponds; 2. Directed the Planning Commission to hold a Public Hearing to consider the revised application with a Public/Semi-Public designation on a 4 acre portion of the site to accommodate an open space component; 3. Directed Redevelopment staff to analyze the effects of this action on terms and conditions of the Disposition and Development Agreement; and 4. Continued the consideration of the General Plan Amendment, Planned Development Permit, Vesting Subdivision Map, Site and Architectural Approval, and SEIR certification to a date uncertain pending the Planning Commission's reconsideration of the revised application. Planning Commission Staff Report for October 28, 1997 GP 96-02/PD 96-06/TS 97-01/S 97-05 -535 Westchester/571 McGlincey Page 3 Revised Plan The developer has submitted a revised plan which illustrates a (4) four acre crescent shaped area on the southerly portion of the project site adjacent to the percolation ponds for a future neighborhood park and a reduction in the proposed building square footage from 330,000 to 280,000 square feet for the research and development portion of the project. The revised plan indicates the deletion of one of the proposed buildings (50,000 square feet) and a revised design for Building D, one of the interior buildings on the site. Landscaping and entry improvements are similar to those previously presented to the Planning Commission, except that a 4 acre public open space component has been included in the revised project. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission reaffirm its decision for the amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan for a four acre open space component and to recommend that the City Council approve the associated development applications. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS At its meeting of April 30, 1997, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3088 recommending to the City Council certification of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR 1996) for the original proposal of a 330,000 square foot research and development business park. The revised project being proposed is a less intensive use with a reduction of 50,000 square feet in building area and the addition of a (4) four acre public open space area. Pursuant to Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, an Addendum, which is attached to this report, was prepared to address the changes between the original project and the revised project. There are no new or more severe potential environmental effects as a result of the revised project. There have been no substantial changes in circumstances, or new information made available that is relevant to the revised project which lead to new or more severe effects. Additionally, there are no new, different or newly feasible mitigation measures that have been identified which are applicable to the revised project. Staff is recommending that the Commission adopt a resolution re-affirming its recommendation for the Supplemental EIR addressing the potential environmental effects of the project and identifying and recommending mitigation measures, and to certify that the Addendum prepared to address the changes in the revised project description is adequate and complete. REPORT FORMAT In the interest of brevity and to reduce some of the material the Planning Commission must read, a major portion of the discussion for the subject applications, is included in the previous Planning Commission Report of April 22, 1997. This previous report is attached for the Commission's review. The discussion in the Planning Commission report is outlined as follows: Planning Commission Staff Report for October 28, 1997 GP 96-02/PD 96-06/TS 97-01/S 97-05 -535 Westchester/571 McGlincey Page 4 Background and Project History_ Environmental Review General Plan Amendment Planned Development Permit Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map Site and Architectural Approval Parks and Recreation Commission Site and Architectural Review Committee PROJECT DATA (Revised Site Plan) Gross Site Area · Research and Development Park · New Public Streets and Dedications · Public Open Space Subtotal TOTAL Research and Development Park Project Data · Building Coverage · On-Site Paving · Landscaping · Basketball Courts Total Site Utilization Floor Area Ratio = .37 Building Data · Building A · Building B · Building C · Building D TOTAL Gross Open Space · Research and Development Park Landscaping · Basketball Courts · Neighborhood Park TOTAL 23.58 acres 17.37 acres 2.21 acres 19.58 acres 4.00 acres 23.58 acres (1,023,660 square feet) 160,000 square feet 21% 367,310 square feet 48% 223,680 square feet 30% 6,080 square feet 1% 757,070 square feet (17.37 acres) 60,000 square feet 100,000 square feet 80,000 square feet 40,000 square feet 280,000 square feet 43% 223,680 square feet 6,080 square feet 174,240 square feet 404,000 square feet (of site area not including public street) (4 acres) (9.28 acres) Planning Commission Staff Report for October 28, 1997 GP 96-02/PD 96-06/TS 97-01/S 97-05 - 535 Westchester/571 McGlincey Page 5 Parking Required: Parking Ratio 1:250 (Research and Development) 1120 total spaces Parking Provided: 1:261 1070 total spaces 50 spaces deficient or 4 percent Standard spaces 634 Compact spaces 416 (39 %) Disabled Parking Spaces 20 1070 ANALYSIS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT Industrial Designation The applicant requests approval of a General Plan Amendment from Destination Commercial to Industrial for approximately 19.5 acres of the northerly portion of the project site. This land use change is unchanged from the previous Planning Commission report of April 22, 1997 which is attached for the Commission's review, except that the building square footage and industrial site area has been reduced, as previously described. Public/Semi Public Designation The proposed 4 acre open space component is located on the southerly portion of the site and is separated from the proposed industrial park by a new public street. This location has the advantage of being detached from the mobile home park and closer to the main entrance in terms of accessing the park from the Union Avenue neighborhood. Additionally, the location adjacent to the groundwater recharge ponds may allow expansion of park facilities around the ponds in the future. The specific improvements and development of the open space portion of the project site will be decided at a future date with the review and participation of the surrounding neighborhood and the community. The attached land use diagram accompanying the General Plan Resolution illustrates a 4.0 acre open space area on the project site adjacent to the Santa Clara Valley Water District Groundwater Recharge Ponds and an industrial land use for the remaining portion of the project site. Staff has re-noticed this application to accommodate the Public/Semi Public use of the site not originally proposed with the previous submittal. Staff additionally has prepared revised development policies for this site reflecting the proposed uses. These policies are attached to the resolution supporting the General Plan Amendment. Planning Commission Staff Report for October 28, 1997 GP 96-02/PD 96-06/TS 97-01/S 97-05 -535 Westchester/571 McGlincey Page 6 DEVELOPMENT AND DISPOSITION AGREEMENT The Redevelopment Agency staff is in the process of negotiating the Terms and Conditions of the Revised Development and Disposition Agreement. Attachment No. 2 , the General Plan Amendment resolution, finds that the disposition of this property is consistent with the recommended General Plan Amendment for this site pursuant to Government Code Section 65402. This finding is required for the disposition of public properties. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT Building Design: The proposed building elevations depict a contemporary building style with a general building height of approximately 34 feet for two story buildings and 21 feet for the single story building. Each building is provided a main building entrance feature oriented towards the private street. Building materials include a textured concrete panel for walls and tinted and reflective glass for glazing systems. All of the buildings utilize a similar materials palette, however, each building is provided an individual design, with an overall project theme being carried out through the use of consistent materials and landscaping. Parking The site plan indicates the provision of 1070 parking spaces for the proposed project or a parking ratio of 1:261. This represents a reduction of 201 Parking spaces from the original proposal. The parking ordinance requires the provision of 1120 parking spaces or a parking ratio of 1:250. The Planning Commission has authority to adjust parking requirements when it finds that specific circumstances of a project wan'ant such an adjustment. The Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Traffic Generation Manual 1991, surveyed a number of research and development facilities recommending an average parking count of 1037 parking spaces or a parking ratio of 1:270 for a project of this size. Staff supports the proposed parking ratio due to the scale of the project, the ability to share parking facilities between buildings and the industrial parking demand for larger research and development facilities as reported in the ITE Traffic Generation Manual. The implementation of Traffic Demand Management measures required by the conditions of approval will also reduce the parking demand. Landscaping The site plan indicates that approximately 30 percent of the research and development portion of the site will be landscaped. This represents an increase from the 27 percent of the site previously proposed. The minimum requirement for landscaping in C-M (Controlled Manufacturing) Zoning District is 10 percent. Planning Commission StaffReport for October 28, 1997 GP 96-02/PD 96-06/TS 97-01/S 97-05 -535 Westchester/571 McGlincey Page 7 The project site, including the 4 acre public open space area, represents a landscaping coverage of approximately 43 percent of the project area, equal to approximately 9.28 acres (not including the public street). The conceptual landscape plan proposes the following features for the development of the site. 1. A 50-foot wide landscape buffer along the mobile home park frontage incorporating a pedestrian path, picnic tables and the retention of the majority of existing trees along this property line. 2. A 15-foot landscape buffer along the northerly property line, a 1 O-foot landscape buffer along the Highway 17 frontage and the retention of a majority of existing trees along these frontages. 3. Landscaping along both the private and public streets throughout the project. 4. Three half basketball courts adjacent to building loading docks. 5. The provision of a pedestrian walkway system throughout the project connecting buildings and accessing the public right of way. 6. Installation of 2 passive plaza areas with water features between buildings or at the building entrance. 7. A four acre open space area along the southern boundary of the site. Approximately 44 trees on the interior of the project site are proposed to be removed. A tree retention and removal plan is found on Sheet L-4. The applicant has indicated the replacement of these trees with eighty-eight 24-inch box trees throughout the project. This tree replacement is consistent with the Water Efficient Landscape Standards(WELS) guidelines adopted by the City. Fencing and Soundwalls: The applicant proposes to construct a 6-foot pre-cast wall along the north property line, the property line adjoining the mobile home park and at the project entrance. A 6-foot cyclone fence is proposed along the Highway 17 frontage. Staff does not support the pre-cast wall along the entry drive and recommends a condition of approval that requires the applicant to provide a fencing plan with an open style fence adjacent to the groundwater recharge ponds and along the public right of way that serves as the entrance to the project. The specific design and location of fencing will require approval of the Site and Architectural Review Committee. VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP The applicant is requesting approval of a vesting tentative map to allow the division of the project site into four parcels to accommodate each of the proposed buildings and a remainder lot for the 4 acre open space component. Each of the proposed industrial lots will share access from the proposed private street and will share ingress and egress easements as well as maintenance agreement through the development of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions(CC and R's). Planning Commission Staff Report for October 28, 1997 GP 96-02/PD 96-06/TS 97-01/S 97-05 -535 Westchester/571 McGlincey Page 8 SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAl, The applicant is proposing the construction of a new public street to access McGlincey Lane. The entrance at McGlincey Lane presents two low screen walls with signage identifying the project and landscaping treatment. These parcels are not contiguous to the project site and consequently the signage represents an off premise sign which must be considered by the Planning Commission. The Sign Ordinance would typically restrict off premise signage to a semi-public use to forty square feet in area. Staff recommends a condition of approval requiring a separate sign application and approval for this project. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE This application was before the Site and Architectural Review Committee at its meeting of October 16, 1997. The Committee found that the introduction of the open space component provided a reasonable compromise of the open space needs of the community and desire of the developer to develop an industrial park. The Committee was supportive of the staff's recommendation that further refinement of the building elevations be provided. This requirement has been addressed within the conditions of approval. Attachments 1. Recommended Resolution for SEIR 1996/Addendum A. Analysis of Environmental Impacts B. Statement of Overriding Considerations 2. Recommended Resolution for Findings for GP 96-02 with Proposed Development Policies and Map. 3. Recommended Resolution for Findings and Conditions of Approval for PD 96-06. 4. Recommended Resolution for Findings and Conditions of Approval for TS 97-01. 5. Recommended Resolution for Findings and Conditions of Approval for S 97-05. 6. Planning Commission Staff Report - Dated April 22, 1997 7. Project Description - Huettig & Schromm, Inc./Kenneth Neumeister February 10, 1997. 8. Reduced Exhibits 9. Environmental Documents Addendum October 1997 and (SEIR 1996 Distributed under separate cover). 10. Location Map 11. Attachment B - Previous General Plan Ordinance 12. Planning Commission and City Council Minutes (Distributed under separate cover) Tim J. Hal~d/, Approved by Sl~aron Fierro, Senior Planner Attachment #9 Addendum to Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Winchester Drive-In Site Project (SCH #96082018) Lead Agency: City of Campbell Redevelopment Agency 70 North First Street Campbell, CA 95008 Contact: Kirk Heinrichs, Redevelopment Manager 408/866-2110 OCTOBER 1997 Contents Chapter Page 3 Purpose of Addendum ...................................................................................................... 1-1 Revised Project Description ............................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 Project Location and Description ............................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Project Objectives .......................................................................................................... 2-4 2.3 Consistency with Local and Regional Plans .................. ... .......................................... 2-4 Discussion of Potential Environmental Impacts ......................................................... 3-1 3.1 Land Use ........................................................................................................................ 3-1 3.2 Traffic/Circulation/Parking ............................... ~ ....................................................... 3-1 3.3 Noise ............................................................................................................................... 3-2 3.4 Air Quality ..................................................................................................................... 3-3 3.5 Hazards .......................................................................................................................... 3-3 3.6 Public Services and Utilities ........................................................................................ 3-4 3.7 Aesthetics ....................................................................................................................... 3-4 3.8 Biological Resources ..................................................................................................... 3-4 3.9 Cultural Resources ....................................................................................................... 3-4 3.10 Geology ......................................................................................................................... 3-4 3.11 Drainage/Flooding ..................................................................................................... 3-5 3.12 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................................... 3-5 3.13 Growth-Inducing Impacts ......................................................................................... 3-5 3.14 Finding of Less Than Significant Impacts ............................................................... 3-5 Alternatives ......................................................................................................................... 4-1 Figures 2-1 Original Site Plan (1996) .................................................................................................... 2-2 2-2 Revised Site Plan (1997) .................................................................................................... 2-3 Appendix A Traffic Analysis Tables sJc/J:\WO RK~136043.CC~CO~rENT.DOC CHAPTER Purpose of Addendum This document is an Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) prepared in 1996 for the Winchester Drive-In site project in the City of Campbell. The project evaluated in the SEIR included 1) a proposed change in the General Plan land use designation of the former Winchester Drive-In site from Commercial to Industrial; and 2) proposed development of approximately 325,000 square feet of research and development light industrial business park, on terms set forth in a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) between the City of Campbell Redevelopment Agency and WTA Campbell Technology Park LLC. On January 7,1997 the City Council and Redevelopment Agency Board considered and approved the DDA and certified the SELR as complete and adequate in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). On June 17,1997 the City Council held a public hearing to consider the proposed land use change and development proposal. After receiving public testimony, the City Council requested that WTA submit an alternate development proposal to incorporate a 4-acre public park or open space on the site. The purpose of this Addendum is to provide CEQA documentation and evaluate the revised project for the former Winchester Drive-In site, which includes the following components: 1) a reduction in building area from approximately 325,000 square feet to 280,000 square feet; and 2) the incorporation of a 4-acre public park or open space not contemplated under the original project proposal. The revised project also includes a revised General Plan amendment request, as follows: 1) change in General Plan land use designation for 19.58 acres of the site from Commercial to Industrial; and 2) change in General Plan land use designation for 4 acres of the site from Commercial to Public/Semi- Public. Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines allows a Lead Agency to prepare an Addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary to the El.R, but none of the conditions calling for preparation of a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR have occurred. Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines state that the conditions which require the preparation of a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR include the following: 1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. 3) New information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been know with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete, shows any of the following: sJc/J:\WORk~136043.CC~17.Doc 1-1 CHN=TER 1 PURPOSE OF ADOENDUM a) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR; b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or d) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. Through the preparation of this Addendum, the City of Campbel.1 has concluded that none of the conditions set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 are met as a result of the revisions to the project previously evaluated in the SEIR certified in January 1997. The evidence provided to support this conclusion is contained in Chapters 2 through 4 of this Addendum. Although not required by the CEQA Guidelines, this Addendum will be made available for public review and comment for 10 calendar days prior to the City Council public hearing on the project. The City Council will consider the Addendum with the certified SEIR prior to making a decision on the project. SJC/017.DOC 1-2 CHAPTER 2 Revised Project Description 2.1 Project Location and Description The Winchester Drive-In site is located in the McGlincey Lane industrial area of the City of Campbell. It is located on the east side of SR-17, between the Camden Avenue and Hamilton Avenue exits. Access to the project site is provided by an access easement to McGlincey Lane, and via Westchester Drive. The project evaluated in the SEIR consisted of 1) a proposed change in the General Plan land use designation for the project site from Commercial to Industrial; and 2) the proposed development of an approximately 325,000 square foot research and development light industrial business park, on terms set forth in a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) between the City of Campbell Redevelopment Agency and WTA Campbell Technology Park LLC. The original proposed site plan is shown in Figure 2-1. After · receiving public testimony on the WTA development proposal, the City Council requested that WTA submit an alternate development proposal to incorporate a 4-acre public park or open space on the site. The revised project site plan is shown in Figure 2-2. The revised project description includes the following components: · A proposed change in the General Plan land use designation of 19.58 acres of the site from Commerdal to Industrial, for the purpose of developing a 280,000 square foot research and development business park with associated on-site and off-site improvements. · A proposed change in the General Plan land use designation of 4 acres of the site from Commercial to Public/Semi-Public for the purpose of developing a public park or open space. · A reduction of industrial square footage by 45,000 square feet from the originally proposed 325,000 square feet to 280,000 square feet; a reduction in parking of 201 spaces, from 1,271 to 1,070; a reduction in the number of buildings from five to four; the development of three 2-story buildings ranging in size between 60,000 and 100,000 square feet, and one 1-story building of approximately 40,000 square feet; and an increase in the percentage of green space/open space (induding the public park or open space and private landscaping) across the entire 23.58-acre site from 29 percent to approximately 40 percent. · A proposed public park or open space to be located at the southeast portion of the site, adjacent to but separate from the existing Santa Clara Valley Water District McGlincey percolation ponds; access to the park would be via the same McGlincey Lane access road used to access the proposed business park. The site SJCAUOSE~WPROC~WORk5136043.CC~18.DOC 2-1 LLI I 7~g.o 2-2 2-3 is being set aside so that it will be available for future park or open space development. All other aspects of the project concerning off-site improvements and circulation would remain the same as under the project originally evaluated in the SEIR. 2.2 Project Objectives The original objective of the project was to develop the former Winchester Drive-In site with a research and development/light industrial business park project consistent with the goals of the Central Campbell Redevelopment Plan. Development of the site by the private development community has been problematic over the years, g~ven the site's limited access to major streets and lack of adequate infrastructure in the area. The Campbell Redevelopment Agency has been assisting in development of the site to meet the City's Redevelopment Plan goals and objectives of improving the infrastructure and other physical and economic conditions of the McGlincey Lane area. With the addition of a 4-acre public park or open space site to the project, the proposed - development now has an added objective of providing an open space site in a neighborhood of Campbell which is considered to be deficient in open space acreage and neighborhood parks. 2.3 Consistency with Local and Regional Plans The State CEQA Guidelines require that ELRs discuss any inconsistency between a proposed project and environmental provisions of any applicable local and regional plans. The purpose of this discussion is to identify potential inconsistencies between the proposed project and these adopted plans, and to identify any potential adverse environmental effects resulting from inconsistencies. Discussion of areas in which a proposed project is consistent with applicable plans is not required but may be included. Following is a discussion of the revised project's consistency with the City of Campbell General Plan, the Bay Area Clean Air Plan, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board's Urban Runoff Management Program. City of Campbell General Plan The project site is currently designated as Commercial by the City's General Plan. To enable the proposed business park and public park or open space to be developed on the project site, a General Plan amendment from Commercial to Industrial for 19.58 acres of the site is required, along with a General Plan amendment from Commerdal to Public/Semi- Public for 4 acres of the site. Once these amendments are approved by the City, the proposed project would be compatible with the Land Use Element of the General Plan. If the amendments are not approved, the project (as described in this Addendum) would not go forward. Changing a portion of the site from Commercial to Industrial would result in the project site being more consistent with the Industrial designation of most of the McGlincey Lane SJC/018.ooc 2-4 CHAPTER 2 REVISED PROJC-CT ~ industrial neighborhood near the site. In fact, the project site was previously designated as Industrial, prior to the City changing its designation to Commerial in 1990 to enable a proposed destination retail project to be developed there. The proposed 4-acre park or open space is consistent in size with the "neighborhood park' definition currently contained in the City's General Plan Open Space Element. The Open Space Element states that development of open space sites in neighborhoods which are deficient in open space acreage is a high priority for the City. The Open Space Element also identifies the Union Avenue area (of which the McGlincey Lane area is a part) as having a · high need for neighborhood parks. The opportunities for developing neighborhood parks in this area are limited due to land availability, cost, and proximity to residential areas. The Winchester Drive-In site has not been identified in the past by the City as a desirable site for public park space in that it does not meet the criteria identified in the General Plan as desirable for public parks. It has poor proximity to residential areas, unfavorable access, and lack of visibility to the general public who would use a neighborhood park. Nonetheless, the proposed public park or open space portion of the Winchester Drive-In site development does provide an open space amenity in an area that currently lacks adequate park space. While it is not easily accessible to Union Avenue residents, it would create an open space resource currently not available to the Union Avenue neighborhood. · Additionally, there are limited opportunities in the Union Avenue area to locate neighborhood parks, and the Campbell Redevelopment Agency already owns the project site. Therefore, a 4-acre park on the Drive-In site would be consistent with certain policies of the Open Space Element of the General Plan in that it would further the goal of providing more neighborhood parks, particularly on the east side of Campbell. A park or open space that does not meet all the Open Space Element criteria can still provide public benefits. It is not inconsistent with the Open Space Element to set aside this acreage for public park or open space use. The nature, use, and design of the park or open space have not yet been determined. In any event, failure of this site to conform to all Open Space Element criteria will not create a potential adverse environmental impact. Additional park or open space does not detract from the environment, and may provide environmental benefit. The City anticipates that the park or open space design will be determined through a public participation process in the future. Should the design and development of the park or open space warrant further environmental review, that review would be completed at the time the design is considered by the City. Bay Area Clean Air Plan The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and the Assodation of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) have jointly prepared the Clean Air Plan pursuant to the California Clean Air Act of 1988. The Bay Area '94 Clean Air Plan (CAP) is the most recently adopted plan. This plan sets forth strategies for reducing air pollutant emissions, primarily ozone precursors, in the Bay Area Air Basin until attainment of the state air quality standards is met. Because the project would not generate substantial emissions of ozone precursors during either construction of the project or ongoing operations, the project would be operated in accordance with the goals of the Clean Air Plan. Further discussion of the revised project's air quality impacts is provided in Section 3.4 of this Addendum. S,~.d018.DOC 2-5 CHAPTER 2 REVISED PROJECT DC=SCRIPTION Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) The RWQCB's Urban Runof£ Management Program requires Bay Area municipalities to develop and implement stormwater management plans that include a program for implementing new development and construction site stormwater quality controls. The objective of the program is to ensure that appropriate measures to control pollutants from new development are considered prior to construction; are implemented during construction; and are maintained after construction and throughout the life of the project. Because the proposed project would require grading of more than five acres during construction, a Notice of Intent (NOI) to the RWQCB under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act would be required. A conceptual Stormwater Pollution and Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that includes Best Management Practices (BMPs) for reducing sediment and controlling storrnwater would be submitted to the RWQCB prior to consl~'uction. The final SWPPP would be prepared by the contractor before any soils disturbance occurred and would include information fTOm the local grading permit. A site-specific SWPPP for project operations would be prepared and would include post-construction BMPs, which are permanent project features designed to address stormwater quality. SJC/O18.DOC 2-6 CHAPTER 3 Discussion of Potential Environmental Impacts 3.1 Land Use The Land Use Element of the City of Campbell General Plan designates the project site as Commercial. To enable the revised project to be to be developed on the project site, a General Plan amendment from Commerdal to Industrial for 19.58 acres of the site is required, along with a General Plan amendment from Commercial to Public/Semi-Public for 4 acres of the site. Once these amendments are approved by the City, the proposed project would be compatible with the Land Use Element of the General Plan. If the amendments are not approved, the revised project (as described iff this Addendum) would not go forward. Please see discussion in Section 2.3 of this Addendum regarding consistency of the revised project with the City's General Plan and Open Space Element. '3.2 Traffic/Circulation/Parking An updated traffic analysis was conducted to reflect the revised project description discussed in Section 2.1 of this Addendum, as well as known changes in background traffic and planned developments in the project vicinity since the SEIR was prepared. Since certification of the SEIR in January 1997, there have been no new project approvals by the City of Campbell in the vicinity of the proposed project that would affect the traffic impacts associated with the project. However, one major development apphcation has been submitted for a project located to the north of the project site (Pruneyard Center at 1999 S. Bascom Avenue submitted in August 1997), and City staff are aware that another development proposal is being considered by Maxim Properties at 900 E. Hamilton Avenue; the timing of the submittal of this application and scope of the project are uncertain. These two projects have been included in the traffic analysis in order to document that no cumulative impacts on the roadway system in the Bascom Avenue corridor would result. The reduction in proposed building square footage from 325,000 square feet to 280,000 square feet results in a proportionate reduction in project-related trip generation of 176 two- way daily trips, 52 two-way AM peak hour trips, and 48 two-way PM peak hour trips. It is anticipated that the public park or open space will be located in an area that was previously occupied by one of the proposed buildings. Although the design and use of the public park or open space have not yet been determined, given the 4-acre size of this area, it is anticipated that the most intensive use would result from a neighborhood park; therefore, in order to analyze the largest potential impact, the updated traffic analysis assumes that traffic generation from the open space will be similar to that generated by a neighborhood park. Other changes in the traffic analysis include the following: · Inclusion of new traffic count information for intersections on Bascom Avenue, as well as driveways entering and exiting the Pruneyard Mall. sJc/J:\WORK~136043.cc~019.DOC 3-1 CHAPTER 3 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL b, tPACl'S · Analysis of additional intersections north of Campbell Avenue to ensure that all potential impacts are identified. These intersections include Bascom at Campbell, Bascom at Campisi, and Bascom at Hamilton. · Use of different traffic analysis software CrRAFFIX), which was recently adopted for use by the Santa Clara County Congestion Management Program; this software is based on the same methodology used in the SEIR traffic analysis, and the results are comparable. · Deletion of Cristich Lane as an access point for the development as originally proposed. While the proposed project will be designed to accommodate future improvement of Cristich Lane, the traffic analysis does not assume the availability of this access for the business park and public park or open space. The updated analysis considered the following five scenarios, as evaluated in the SF, IR: 1) Existing condition; 2) Existing plus Approved; 3) Existing plus Approved plus Project; 4) Existing plus Approved plus "Combined Project;" and 5) Existing plus Approved plus Project plus "Expected." The Approved scenario includes approved trips for San Jose projects and two approved hotel projects in Campbell north of Campbell Avenue. The Combined Project includes several office projects north of Campbell Avenue that have not as yet been approved but are in various stages of City review; this analysis shows the potential impact of these projects in relationship to the Winchester Drive-In project. The Expected Project adds 3 percent growth for existing volumes to the Existing plus Approved plus Project analysis, to account for a two-year period before full occupancy of the proposed project occurs. The analysis shows that the impacts are less than significant for the revised project at all signalized intersections located in Campbell and San Jose and, further, that all intersections will function at acceptable levels of service even when all potential projects are considered. Significant impacts would continue to occur at the unsignal~zed intersection of McGlincey and Union, where signalization is justified because of the significant delays (Level of Service F) that would occur for eastbound left turns from McGlincey Lane during the PM peak hour. A comparison of the Project and Combined Project scenarios demonstrates that the impacts of the Winchester Drive-In project generally do not overlap with those of the potential projects in the area. The results of the updated traffic analysis condude that the revised project, consisting of 280,000 square feet of light industrial/research and development business park and a 4-acre public park or open space, would generate less traffic than the original project and, therefore, would not have significant traffic impacts. Appendix A of this Addendum includes three tables showing pertinent traffic data from the updated analysis. These tables include trip generation data from the revised project, revised project AM peak hour level of service results, and revised project PM peak hour level of service results. 3.3 Noise The project site is currently exposed to noise generated by traffic on SR-17. The noise levels are generally below an L~ of 70 dB. The revised project description includes a public park or open space to be located in the southeast portion of the site. According to the land use s,~c/J.~WORK~136043.cc~ 19.Doc 3-2 CHAPTER 3 D~SCUSS~N O~ EN~RONMEmAL IMPACTS compatibility guidelines used in the Supplemental EIR, the acceptable L,~ for playgrounds and neighborhood parks is up to but not exceeding 70 dB. Therefore, the park/open space portion of the project will not be exposed to noise levels exceeding the guideline, and no sigrtificant noise impacts are expected to occur. Traffic-related noise from the revised project is expected to decrease compared to the original proposal, because the amount of traffic generated from the project would be decreased. 3.4 Air Quality The air quality analysis contained in the SEIR identified that three intersections (Camden/Curtner, Bascom/Camden, and Bascom/Union) would exceed the 8-hour carbon monoxide (CO) standard under both the existing and future scenarios. The project evaluated in the SEIR was identified as contributing to CO exceedences at two intersections: Camden/Curtner and Union/Campbell. The reduction in traffic generation from the revised project would result in a decrease in CO concentrations at the study intersections. No significant new additional air quality mitigations are available. City dedsionmakers may reconsider the Statement of Overriding Considerations that was adopted for air quality - impacts when they act on the revised project. 3.5 Hazards Because of the light industrial nature of the McGlincey Lane area, many of the businesses in the vicinity of the project site may use and store materials that have been determined to be hazardous under the City's Hazardous Materials Storage Ordinance (H1VISO). The HMSO requires any business that stores or uses materials regulated as hazardous under the ordinance to obtain a permit, for which a Hazardous Materials Inventory Statement (HMIS) and a Hazardous Materials Management Plan (t-IMMP) are required. The types of materials used and stored in the McGlincey Lane area are expected to include petroleum products, lacquer, paint thinner, paint, and paving materials. There are no known computer or electronics manufacturing businesses within the area, so there are not anticipated to be any hazardous liquid or gaseous compounds typically associated with the electronics industry in the project vidnity. The addition of a public park or open space feature to the proposed project could bring children into the McGhncey Lane industrial area, and thereby increase their potential exposure to industrial hazards. However, implementation and ongoing enforcement of the City of Campbell Hazardous Materials Storage Ordinance and Toxic Gas Ordinance, which are designed and intended to protect health, life, resources, and property through the prevention and control of unauthorized releases of hazardous materials, will minimize the potential exposure of users of the public park or open space to industrial hazards. Any remaining exposure would not be considered potentially significant as an environmental impact. SJ~J:\WORK~136043.CC~19.IX)C 3-3 3.6 Public Services and Utilities Police and Fire Services The addition of a public park or open space to the proposed project is not expected to generate the need for additional police or fire ,services. Some additional park use may occur by children and families in the non-work hours. However, it is anticipated that the majority of park use will be by employees of the proposed business park and surrounding businesses in the McGlincey Lane area who are already in the vicinity of the project site. Use of the park could be limited to daylight hours, and posted with signage to this effect. Water Supply Water supply improvements to the project site will be installed ~rith construction of the proposed business park. It is anticipated that these improvements will be satisfactory to serve the proposed public park or open space. 3.7 Aesthetics · The revised site plan includes substantial landscaping on all sides of the property, and landscaping within the development itself. The addition of a public park or open space to the project results in a decrease in the number of buildings originally proposed on the site (from five structures to four), and a corresponding decrease in overall square footage. The aesthetics of the site would be expected to improve with the revised project. 3.8 Biological Resources The addition of a public park or open space to the project site will provide additional landscape habitat for the urban wildlife that currently use the site. This would be a beneficial impact of the revised project. 3.9 Cultural Resources No prehistoric cultural resources have been recorded at the project site. Therefore, the revised project and addition of a public park or open space is not anticipated to have a significant effect on cultural resources. 3.10 Geology The project site is in an area predominantly classified as having Iow to moderate seismic hazards. Therefore, the revised project and addition of a public park or open space will not result in a significant geotechnical impact. sac/J:\WORK~136043.cc~ 19.~0c 3-4 CHAP [ER 3 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAC'rS 3.11 Drainage/Flooding The project site is outside of the boundary of the lO0-year flood and is not subject to flooding. On- and off-site storm drainage improvements will be installed as part of the business park to address previously identified drainage impacts. The addition of a public park or open space will decrease the amount of impervious surface on the site, thereby decreasing the project's project storm drainage run-off. This would be a beneficial impact of the revised project. 3.12 Cumulative Impacts As described in Section 3.2 of this Addendum (Traffic/Circulation/Parking), the analysis shows that the impacts are less than significant for the revised p~oject at all signalized intersections located in Campbell and San Jose and, further, that all intersections will function at acceptable levels of service even when all potential cumulative projects are considered. 3.13 Growth-Inducing Impacts CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126[g]) require that an EIR evaluate the growth-inducing impact of a proposed action. The Guidelines define growth-inducing impacts as those that could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Included in the definition of induced growth are projects which would remove obstacles to population growth (a major expansion of a wastewater treatment plant). A project is also considered growth-inducing when it encourages and facilitates other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively. Growth in any area is not assumed to be necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance for the environment. Implementation of the revised project is not expected to induce substantial growth. The proposed public park or open space is a land use intended to serve an existing neighborhood and otherwise existing population in the eastern portion of Campbell. 3.14 Finding of Less Than Significant Impacts As discussed in Sections 3.1 through 3.13 above, the revised project is not anticipated to result in any substantial new environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Major revisions to the Supplemental EIR are not required, and no new mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the Supplemental F_IR have been identified. Therefore, none of the conditions set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 are met as a result of the revisions to the project previously evaluated in the Supplemental EIR, and this Addendum is the appropriate environmental review document for the revised project. sJc/J:\WORK~1:36043.cc~19.DOC 3-5 Alternatives The revised project description does not result irt the need to prepare additional alternatives analysis in this Addendum. The SEIR provided an expanded alternatives discussion to the orisinal alternatives analysis provided irt the 1992 McGlincey Lane F~rR. The 1992 EIR evaluated several alternatives in accordance with CEQA, including the No Project Alternative, a Reduced Scale Alternative, alternative land uses on the Winchester Drive-In site, and alternative redevelopment expansion areas. One of the alternative land uses evaluated for the site was a public park. The SF.1R provided an expanded discussion of the park alternative, alon§ with discussion of a commercial recreation alternative. Therefore, because these alternatives have already been evaluated in previo~ environmental documents certified by the City, and because the revised project includes a 4-acre park or open space, no additional alternatives are required to be evaluated. SJC/~UO$ E~WPROC~WORK~136043.CC~.D0C 4-1 APPENDIX A TRAFFIC ANALYSIS TABLES &JCA~JOS E~WP ROC~WORK~ 136043.CC~{321 .DOC Table 2-1 Comparison of Original and Revised Project Trip Generation Oriainal Project Size 24-hour 2-way AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour o~,e~o~ I-~l ~.t.rI ~x,, ~l~x. ~.t.~I ~. ~esearcn & uevelopment ~2~,uuu 1,2~ 1,z~ ~u/ ~ oz z~ .Revised Pro|ect _ g r}/ Size 24-hour 2-way AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Cate o (sq. ft.) Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit ~esearct~ & uevelopment 2~u,uuo 1,u9;:1 1,o~;~ 2u4 ,54 4~ Neighborhood Park 4 acres - - 11 11 11 11 Total 275 65 56 264 Net Change {ReviSed~.OH~inal) -32 2 4 -30 Note: Park estimates based on data collected at City of Campbell's Fischer Park, which is approximately the same size as proposed park. CITY OF CAMPBELL Community Development Department · Current Planning October 10, 1997 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Campbell has set the time of 7:30 p.m., or shortly thereafter, on Tuesday, October 28, 1997, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California, for a Public Hearing to consider the City Council referral of the application of Mr. Ken Neumeister, on behalf of WTA Development & Huettig & Schromm, Inc., for approval of the following applications for property located at 535 Westchester Drive (formerly the Winchester Drive-In Site) in a PD (Planned Development) Zoning District) and 571 McGlincey Lane in an M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District: A General Plan Amendment (GP 96-02) to consider a change in the Land Use Element of the General Plan from Destination Commercial to Industrial (+ 19.5 acres) and Public/Semi-Public (4 acres). A Planned Development Permit (PD 96-06) to allow the construction of a 280,000 square foot research and development park and a four acre park. 3. A Vested Tentative Subdivision Map (TS 97-01) to allow the creation of five lots. A Site and Architectural Approval (S 97-05) to allow the construction of two off-premise signs and landscaping at the McGlincey Lane entrance to the site. An Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, certified by City Council in January 1997, has been prepared analyzing the impact of designating four acres of this site as a public park and reducing the total building square footage from 330,000 square feet to 280,000 square feet. Copies of the Addendum will be available for public review starting on October 17, 1997, at the Community Development Department Office, 70 N. First Street, Campbell, CA 95008 and at the Campbell Library at 77 Harrison, Campbell, CA 95008. Interested persons may appear and be heard at this hearing. Please be advised that if you challenge the nature of the above project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing described in this Notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Campbell Planning Commission at, or prior to, the Public Hearing. Questions may be addressed to the Community Development Department at (408) 866-2140. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, listening assistive devices are available for all meetings held in the Council Chambers. If you require accommodation, please contact the Community Development Department at (408) 866-2140, at least one week in advance of the meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF CAMPBELL STEVE PIASECKI SECRETARY PLEASE NOTE: When calling about this Notice, please refer to File No. GP 96-02/PD 96-06/TS 97-01/S 97-05 Address: 535 WestchesterDrive/571 McGlincey Lane 7o North First Street - Campbell, California 95008.1423 · TEL 408.866.2140 - FAX 408.866.8381 ' TDD 408.866.2790 PUBLIC HEARINGS AND INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCE~R Application of Richard Millen for a Planned Development Permit to Allow the Construction of two new single-family homes in a PD (Planned Developmem) Zoning District - 202 Sunnyside Avenue - PD 97-02 (Resolution/Roll Call Vote) This is the time and place for a public hearing to consider the application of Richard Millen for a Planned Development Permit to allow the consnmction of two new single- family homes in a PD (Planned Development) Zoning District - 202 Sunayside Avenue - PD 97-02. Senior Planner Fierro - Staff Report dated October 21, 1997. Mayor Conant declared the public hearing open and asked if anyone in the audience wished to be heard. There being no one wishing to be heard, Mayor Conant closed the public hearing. M/S: Dougherty/Dean - to adopt Resolmion 9295 approving a Planned Development Permit (PD 97-02) to allow the construction of two single family residences on property located at 202 Sunnyside Avenue in a PD (Planned Development) Zoning District. Motion adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers: Dougherty, Watson, Dean, Furtado, Conant NOES: Councilmembers: None UNFINISHED BUSINESS 8. Winchester Drive-in Proceeds Committee - Project Recommendations Councilmembers Dougherty and Furtado, Co-Chairs of the Winchester Drive-in Proceeds Committee, provided a brief report on the Committee's recommendations. Mayor Conant stated that the recommendations of the Winchester Drive-in Proceeds Committee will be noted and Fried. NEW BUSINESS There were no agendized items. Minutes of 10/21/97 City Council Meeting 4 Council Report Item: 8. Category: Unfinished Business Date: October 21, 1997 TITLE: Winchester Drive-In Proceeds Committee-Project Recommendations RECOMMENDATION That the City Council note and file the recommendations of the Winchester Drive-In Proceeds Committee. DISCUSSION On February 18, 1997, the City Council established a committee to provide recommendations regarding the allocation of proceeds estimated to result fi,om the sale of the Winchester Drive-In site. The Proceeds Committee is comprised of nine members including co-chairs of the committee, Couneilmembers Dougherty and Furtado. The Committee's work was completed in two phases and included a total of seven meetings, as well as a tour of the Campbell Community Center. A Phase One report that provided the Committee's recommended project criteria, was submitted to the City Council on May 20, 1997. Upon Council approval of project criteria, the Proceeds Committee moved on to its second phase of work as potential projects were identified, reviewed and prioritized. The Proceeds Committee completed this phase of its work in a series of five meetings conducted from June to early October. In addition to suggestions from Committee members, potential project suggestions were solicited via the Campbell Profile and the City's Website. The Committee also reviewed the Capital Improvement Plan Unfunded Projects list as a source for suggested projects. Once a list of possible projects was identified, the Committee asked staff to provide initial estimates of both capital and operating costs. The Committee then incorporated this information in its evaluation of projects. Attached are the Committee's recommendations for allocation of Winchester Drive-In net proceeds (estimated to be $2,000,000). To finalize its project priorities, the Committee organized projects into categories. Category "A" projects totaling $1,066,000, were of the highest priority for the Committee and a group of projects for which there was Committee consensus. The next highest priority for the Committee, was the Community Theater Project that a Committee majority wished to support at a $500,000 level. The Committee's third category in order of priority, is open space acquisition. A majority of the Committee recommends support Council Report-Unfinished Business October 21, 1997 Page 2 of this project at a $434,000 level. The Committee continued to discuss an additional recreational pool at the Community Center until its final meeting. However, upon final prioritization, this $986,000 Project did not maintain enough Committee support to remain in the Committee's recommendation. NEXT STEPS The City Council may wish to table further discussion of Committee recommendations until proceeds from the sale of the site are actually available. Further City Council discussions may include any modifications to the recommended list that Council believes appropriate, as well as direction to staff regarding more detailed cost estimates, project scheduling and CIP adjustments. FISCAL IMPACTS Fiscal impacts to the 1997/98 budget, do not result from the action recommended here. Upon sale of the Winchester Drive-In site, receipt of the proceeds, and further Council discussion and direction, both revenue and expenditures accounts may be increased to reflect both the receipt of revenue and approved appropriations of this revenue. Barbara Lee, Admi'nistrative Services Director / Gi~ich~n (~onn-e~, Finite Director APPROVED BY: M.~~~ Manager Wim..,ester Drive-In Proceeds Comm..tee Project Recommendations October 6, 1997 RECOMMENDED pROJECTS CategorF ,4 (In order of PrioritF~ Youth/Teen Center (Room 50, Community Center) Museum Firehouse Renovation Restroom Facility at Rosemary School School Playficld Enhancements (Capri, Hazelwood, Forest Hill) Neighborhood Street Trees Water Feature at Pool (Community Center) Auxiliary Gym Improvements (Community Center) Fitness Center Improvements (Community Center) Skateboard Facility (Community Center) Campbell Bobby Sox Snack Shack SUBTOTAL Cateeorv B Community Theater Cateeorv C Recreation Pool - Not Recommended for Funding ($822,000 - $986,000) Cateeorv D Open Space Acquisition TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS $ 125,000 60,000 135,000 300,000 50,000 45,000 61,000 250,000 15,000 25,000 $ 1,066,000 $ 500,000 $ 0 $ 434,000 $ 2,000,000 17. M/S: Dougherty/Watson - to adopt the increase in California per capita income and City population growth as the calculation factors to be used in determining the City's spending limitation for Fiscal Year 97/98; and adopt Resolution 9237 establishing the City of Campbell's appropriation limit at $25,865,839 for Fiscal Year 1997-98. Motion adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers: Dougherty, Watson, Dean, Furtado, Conant NOES: Councilmembers: None Application of Ken Neumeister, on behalf of WTA Development and Huettig & Schromm, Inc. for approval of: a. General Plan Amendment - GP 96-02 - to consider a change in the Land Use Element of the General Plan from Commercial to Industrial and/or Public/Semi-Public to possibly accommodate a portion of the site for open space; b. Planned Development Permit - PD 96-06 - to allow the construction of a 330,000 square foot research and development park and potential open space area; c. Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map - TS 97-01; d. Site and Architectural Approval - S 97-05 - to allow construction of two off premise signs and landscaping at the McGlincey Lane entrance to the site; and e. Certification of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for this project, and adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations in connection therewith. (Cont'd. 5/20/97 and 6/3/97) This is the time and place for a continued public hearing to consider the application of Ken Neumeister, on behalf of WTA Development and Huettig & Schromm, Inc. for approval of: a. General Plan Amendment - GP 96-02 - to consider a change in the Land Use Element of the General Plan from Commercial to Industrial and/or Public/Semi-Public to possibly accommodate a portion of the site for open space; b. Planned Development Permit - PD 96-06 - to allow the construction of a 330,000 square foot research and development park and potential open space area; c. Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map - TS 97-01; d. Site and Architectural Approval - S 97-05 - to allow construction of two off premise signs and landscaping at the McGlincey Lane entrance to the site; and e. Certification of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for this project, and adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations in connection therewith. Mayor Conant stated that the public hearing was continued from the June 3~ City Council Meeting, declared the public hearing open and asked if anyone in the audience wished to be heard. Minutes of 6/17/97 City Council Meeting 8 M/S: Watson/Dougherty - that the City Council/Redevelopmem Agency Board direct staff to incorporate within the final adopted and published Budget document any changes or impacts related to the meet and confer process, any minor corrections due to more ref'med budgetary estimates, and/or any adjustments pursuant to this Public Hearing. Motion adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: Council/Agency Members: Dougherty, Watson, Dean, Furtado, Conant NOES: Council/Agency Members: None 15. Approval of Fiscal Year 1997-98 Schedule of Fees and Charges (Resolution/Roll Call Vote) This is the time and place for a public hearing to consider approval of the Schedule of Fees and Charges for Fiscal Year 1997-98. Finance Director Conner - Staff Report dated June 17, 1997. Mayor Conant declared the public hearing open and asked if anyone in the audience wished to be heard. There being no one wishing to speak, Mayor Conant closed the public hearing. M/S: Watson/Dougherty - to adopt Resolution 9236 approving the annual modification to the City's Schedule of Fees and Charges, effective July 1, 1997. Motion adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers: Dougherty, Watson, Dean, Furtado, Conant NOES: Councilmembers: None 16. Approval of Proposition 4 - Gann Spending Limitation Fiscal Year 1997-98 (Resolution/Roll Call Vote) This is the time and place for a public hearing to consider the adoption of Fiscal Year 1997-98 Proposition 4 Expenditure Limitations. Finance Director Conner - Staff Report dated June 17, 1997. Mayor Conant declared the public hearing open and asked if anyone in the audience wished to be heard. There being no one wishing to speak, Mayor Conant closed the public hearing. Minutes of 6/17/97 City Council Meeting 7 Brad Jones, 692 Bucknall Avenue, Campbell, appeared before the City Council and expressed his concerns that, although this site may not be the best site for a park, the City Council should address its open space needs before the property is sold. Mike Kotowski, 571 N. Harrison Avenue, Campbell, appeared before the City Council and spoke in support of the Planning Commission's recommendation to incorporate an open space element on the site. Dan Bryant, 41 Heritage Village Lane, Campbell, appeared before the City Council and stated that the Council should listen to the citizens who have continually asked for open space on the site. Susanne Waher, 1381 Estxellita Way, Campbell, appeared before the City Council and spoke in support of keeping as much open space on the site as possible. There being no one else wishing to speak, Mayor Conant closed the public hearing. City Council Discussion: Councilmember Dougherty spoke in support of referring thi.~ item back to the Planning Commission with a recommendation to look at a variety of open space configurations on the site. Councilmember Dougherty reiterated his recommendation that a Council Study Session, perhaps a joint meeting with the Planning Commission, be scheduled to discuss how the City is going to meet the open space needs for the 21" century because he believes that the City cannot afford to sell this property until that has been done. Councilmember Dougherty also spoke regarding a proposal that he previously submitted for a plan that would provide a way to pay for a park on this site and other capital projects which he believes should be submitted to the voters to decide. Councilmember Dean discussed various concerns with this project including the need for additional open space which he believes is a critical element to the quality of life, there is not any other space available in the City, and inconsistencies with the City's General Plan. Councilmember Dean stated that a four acre park is a step in the right direction and spoke in support of referring this back to the Planning Commission. Councilmember Furtado expressed various concerns about developing the site as a park, including the cost of developing and maintaining a park and safety issues. Councilmember Furtado further stated that open space needs to be looked at regionally and cited a number of parks and open space opportunities that are in close proximity and within the City's sphere of influence. Councilmember Furtado stated that he would be willing to direct staff to work with the developer to redesign the project to include approximately four acres of open space adjacem to the percolation ponds. Minutes of 6/17/97 City Council Meeting 9 Vice Mayor Watson stated that lack of public visibility and safety continues to be a primary concern with this site. Vice Mayor Watson stated that she would support the Planning Commission recommendation to incorporate some open space on the site, and would be willing to look at a neighborhood park of about four acres. Vice Mayor Watson also stated that the neighbors, the developer, and the Parks and Recreation Commission need to be involved in the development of the park._ Mayor Conant stated that, although' she still does not believe this is an appropriate site for a park, she would support the Planning Commission recommendation to incorporate an open space component if the developer is willing to work with staff to redesign the project. Mayor Conant stated that she would be willing to look at a neighborhood park on the site located adjacent to the percolation ponds. Mayor Conant further stated that this would fulfill the need for a neighborhood park located in the Union Avenue area as written in the open space element. Councilmember Dougherty requested that the City Council direct staff to explore various options regarding the open space component including a minimum of four acres, something in the ten to twelve acre range, and something in between. Following discussion, M/S: WatsonfFurtado - to direct staff to work with the developer to redesign the project to accommodate a four acre neighborhood park located adjacent to the percolation ponds, direct the Planning Commission to reconsider the revised application and hold a new public hearing for consideration of a Public/Semi-Public designation on a portion of the site to accommodate an open space component; direct Redevelopment staff to analyze the effects of this action on the terms and conditions of the Disposition and Development Agr~ment; and continue the General Plan Amendment, Planned Development Permit, Vesting Subdivision Map, Site and Architectural Approval, and SEIR certification items to a date to be noticed later pending Planning Commission reconsideration of a revised application. Motion adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers: Watson, Furtado, Conant NOES: Councilmembers: Dougherty, Dean Recess/Reconvene: Mayor Conant declared a recess at 10:00 p.m. The City Council reconvened at 10:10 p.m. Councilmember Dougherty requested that the City Council schedule a Study Session as soon as possible to discuss the City's open space needs and how the City is going to meet those needs. Minutes of 6117197 City Council Meeting 10 Following discussion, M/S: Dean/Dougherty - that the City Council schedule a Study Session to investigate where additional open space can be found within Campbell in the July/August time frame. Motion failed by a 2-3-0 vote, Couneiimembers Watson, Furtado and Conant voting "No." It was the comensus of the City Council that a Study Session should be scheduled in October. Lighting and Landscaping District - Fiscal Year 1997-98 - Confh, ming Assessments (Resolution/Roll Call Vote) (Cont'd. 6/3/97) This is the time and place for a continued public hearing to consider confirming assessments for the Lighting and Landscaping District for Fiscal Year 1997-98. Mayor Conam stated that the public hearing was continued from the June 3~ City Council Meeting, declared the public hearing open and asked if anyone in the audience wished to be heard. There being no one wishing to speak, Mayor Conant closed the public hearing. M/S: Furtado/Watson - that the City Council adopt Resolution 9238 approving the Engineer's Report, ordering the improvements, and conf'mning the diagram and assessments for the City of Campbell Lighting and Landscaping District LLA-1 for Fiscal Year 1997/98. Motion adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers: Watson, Furtado, Conant NOES: Councilmembers: Dougherty, Dean UNFINISHED BUSINESS There were no agendized items. NEW BUSINESS There were no agendized items. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS 19. City Councilmember Reports --Councilmember Dean spoke regarding the action taken by the State Board of Education regarding a neighborhood petition to change school boundaries. --Vice Mayor Watson spoke regarding the Santa Clara Valley Water District Flood Control Advisory Committee. Minmes of 6/17/97 City Council Meeting 11 Council Report l~m: 17. Category: Public Hearings Date: Ju~_n_e 17, 1997 Application of Ken Neumeister, on lw. half of WTA Development and Huettig & Schromm, Inc. for approval of: A. General Plan Amendment (GP 96-02) to consider a change in the Land Use Element of the General Plan from Destination Commercial to Industrial; B. Planned Development Permit (PD 96-06) to allow the construction of a 330,000 square foot research and development park; C. Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (TS 97-01) to allow the creation of five lots; D. Site and Architectural Approval (S 97-0b') to allow construction of two off- premise signs and landscaping at the McGlincey Lane entrance to the site; and E. Certification of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for this project and the adoption of a statement of overriding comiderations. DISCUSSION: At the June 3~ Council Meeting, the City Council continued thi~ item to the June 17' Meeting when it is expected that all members of the City Council will be present. PREPARED BY: Anne Bybee, City Clerk APPROVED: " ty Manager City of Campbell - Redevelopment Agency Memorandum To: Bernie Strojny City Manager From: Kirk Heinrichs Redevelopment Date: Subject: June 13, 1997 RECEIVED JUN 13 1997 CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING DEPT. Preliminary Timing of Processing WTA Development Application Per your request, I have provided a preliminary schedule anticipated to process the WTA Development application for the Drive-In site assuming the Council follows the recommendation of the Planning Commission. June 17 Council directs WTA to re-design project to accommodate a four acre public park. June 30 Special Agency Board closed session is scheduled to discuss the impacts of the redesign on the terms and conditions of the DDA. July 15 Briefing by City/RDA attorneys on anticipated judgement in the first lawsuit, and possible briefing of any changes necessary to the DDA as a result of staff's discussions with WTA. August 12 Planning Commission public hearing on the redesign of the project. September 2 City Council consideration of Planning Commission recommendation on revised project. September 16 If City Council takes a first reading on 9/2, the second reading is taken. cc: Steve Piasecki ITEMS CONSIDERED SEPARATE FROM CONSENT CALENDAR: 2. Minutes of Regular Meeting of May 6, 1997 (Cont'd. $/20/97) Councilmember Dean made a motion to amend the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 6, 1997 with three amendments as stated in the Staff Report. Motion died for lack of a second. M/S: Dougherty/Furtado - to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 6, 1997. Motion adopted by a 3-1-1 vote, Councilmember Dean voting UNo" and Vice Mayor Watson absent. ORAL REOUESTS There were no Oral Requests. pUBLIC HEARINGS AND INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES 11. Application of Ken Neumeister, on behalf of WTA Development and Huettig & Schromm, Inc. for approval of: a. General Plan Amendment - GP 96-02 - to consider a change in the Land Use Element of the General Plan from Commercial to Industrial and/or Public/ Semi-Public to possibly accommodate a portion of the site for open space; b. Planned Development Permit - PD 96-06 - to allow the construction of a 330,000 square foot research and development park and potential open space area; c. Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map - TS 97-01; d. Site and Architectural Approval - S 97-05 - to allow construction of two off premine signs and landscaping at the McGlincey Lane entrance to the site; and e. Certification of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for this project, and adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations in connection therewith (Continued from 5/20/97 City Council Meeting) (Note: A transcript of this item was prepared by a certified court reporter in addition to the Minutes as prepared by the City Clerk.) This is the time and place for a public he~ng to consider the application of Ken Neumeister, on behalf of WTA Developmeat and Huettig & Schromm, I1~. for approval of: a General Plan Amendment - GP 96-02 - to consider a change in the Land Use Element of the General Plan from Commercial to Industrial and/or Public/Semi- Public to possibly accommodate a portion of the site for open space; a Planned Development Permit - PD 96-06 - to allow the construction of a 330,000 square foot research and development park and potential open space area; a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map - TS 97-01; a Site and Architectural Approval - S 97-05 - to allow construction of two off premise signs and landscaping at the MeGlincey Lane entrance to the site; and Certification of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Minutes of 6/3/97 City Council Meeting 4 for this project, and adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations in connection therewith. Associate Planner Haley - Staff Report dated June 3, 1997. Mayor Conant declared the public hearing open and asked if anyone in the audience wished to be heard. Howard White, Managing General Partner of WTA, applicant, appeared before the City Council and stated that he would be willing to explore further the poss~ility of incorporating a public park on the site with certain provisions. Discussion followed regarding various concerns including paridn!, a campus-like environment, passive vs. active open space, and park size. Ken Pearsall, 945 Norin Court, Campbell, appeared before the City Council and spoke in support of open space on the site. Mr. Pearsall also requested that Mayor Conant abstain from voting on this issue due to an inherent conflict of interest under the Political Reform Act. Mr. Pearsall submitted a letter for the record regarding the conflict of interest. City Attorney Seligmann responded to Mr. Pearsall's comments. Don Hebard, 205 Calado Avenue, Campbell, appeared before the City Council on behalf of the ~People for Open Space in Campbell" stating that they are prepared to proceed with a referendum on this issue. Daniel Bryant, 41 Heritage Village Lane, Campbell, appeared before the City Council on behalf of the Campbell Renters Coalition and spoke in support of open space. David Sausjord, 946 Norin Court, Campbell, appeared before the City Council and spoke in support of a park. Merline Rasmussen, 9 La Paloma, Campbell, appeared before the City Council on behalf of Paseo de Palomas Mobile Home Park, and spoke in support of the WTA Development. Catherine Ball, 504 Dallas Drive, Csm?bell, appeared before the City Council and spoke regarding issues that were raised by the Planning Commission. Gordon Reynolds, San lose, appeared before the City Council and spoke in support of open space. Garnetta Annable, Santa Clara Open Space Authority District 4, appeared before the City Council and spoke in support of a plan that would incorporate some usable open space on the site. Minutes of 6/3/97 City Council Meeting Susanne Waher, 1381 Estrellita Way, Campbell, appeared before the City Council and stated that a four acre park is a step in the fight direction, but it is simply not large enough. Mayor Conant asked if there was anyone else in the audience who whbed to speak on this item. There was no one else wishing to speak. Following discussion, it was the consensus of the City Council to continue the public hearing to the June 17~ Council Meeting due to Vice Mayor Watson's absence tonight. Councilmember Dougherty stated that he believes a Study Session should be scheduled prior to the City Council taking final action on this m~r to discuss how the City plans to address its open space needs. M/S: DoughertyfFurtado - that the public hearing be continued to the June I'Fa City Council Meeting. Motion adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES : Connciimembers: Dougherty, Furtado, Conant NOES : Councilmembers: Dean ABSENT: Councilmembers: Watson Mayor Conant requested staff to provide Vice Mayor Watson with the mirrtltes, tape and information distributed this evening for her review prior to the June 17~ Council Meeting. Recess/Reconvene: Mayor Conant declared a recess at 9:35 p.m. The City Council reconvened at 9:55 p.m. 12. Lighting and Landscaping District - Fiscal Year 1997-98 - Confh'mlng Assessments (Resolution/Roll Call Vote) This is the time and place for a public hearing to consider confirming assessments for the Lighting and Landscaping District - Fiscal Year 1997/98. Mayor Conant read an Opening Statement and declared the public hearing open. City Clerk Bybee read the Clerk's Statement verifying Noticing of Hearing and stated that zero protests were received. Public Works Director Kass read the Statement as to the nature of the Project. Mayor Conant asked if anyone in the audience wished to be heard. Minmes of 6/3/97 City Council Meeting 6 Council Report Item: 11 Category: Public Hearing Date: June 3, 1997 TITLE Application of Ken Neumeister, on behalf of WTA Development and Huettig & Schromm, Inc., for approval of: A. General Plan Amendment (GP 96-02) to consider a change in the Land Use Element of the General Plan from Destination Commercial to Industrial; B. Planned Development Permit (PD 96-06) to allow the construction of a 330,000 square foot research and development park; C. Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (TS 97-01) to allow the creation of five lots; D. Site and Architectural Approval (S 97-05) to allow construction of two off-premise signs and landscaping at the McGlincey Lane entrance to the site; and E. Certification of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for this project and the adoption of a statement of overriding consideration. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council take the following actions: Adopt a Resolution, incorporating the attached findings, certifying the SEIR 1996; and adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations for this project; and Approve a General Plan Amendment (GP 96-02) for the project site from Destination Commercial to Industrial and Public/Semi-Public, incorporating a map amendment and text changes in the Development Policies as provided in Attachment "A"; and Deny the requested Planned Development Permit (PD 96-06), the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (TS 97-01) and the Site and Architectural Approval (S 97-05), without prejudice, in that the development proposal does not incorporate a minimum four acre open space area and there is insufficient information on which to review the revised site plan, based upon the findings incorporated in the attached Planning Commission Resolutions. If the City Council accepts the recommendation of the Planning Commission, then prior to taking action it will be necessary to do the following: a. Assuming that the applicant will submit a redesign of the project to accommodate an open space component (see attachment 1 - letter from WTA Development), direct the Planning Commission to reconsider the revised application and hold a new public hearing for consideration of a Public/Semi-Public designation on a portion of the site to accommodate an open space component. b. Direct Redevelopment staffto analyze the effects of this action on the terms and conditions of the Disposition and Development Agreement, and Application of Ken Nem~teister, on behalf of WTA Development June 3, 1997 Page 2 Co Continue the General Plan Amendment, Planned Development Permit, Vesting Subdivision Map, Site and Architectural Approval, and SEIR certification items to a date to be noticed later pending Planning Commission reconsideration of a revised application. REPORT FORMAT In the interest of brevity and to reduce some of the paper that the Council must read, a major portion of the discussion for the subject applications, is included in the attached Planning Commission Staff Report of April 22, 1997. The Planning Commission report was previously provided to the City Council with the exhibits and environmental documents and is included as attachment No. 1 of this report. The discussion in the Planning Commission report is outlined as follows: · Background and Project History · Environmental Review · General Plan Amendment · Planned Development Permit · Vesting Tentative Map · Site and Architectural Approval · Parks and Recreation Commission · Site and Architectural Review Committee PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION On April 30, 1997, the Planning Commission adopted recommending that the City Council certify the (SEIR) 1996 statement of overriding consideration for this project. Resolution No. 3088 and the adoption of a On May 13, 1997, the Planning Commission failed to achieve a majority to pass a motion on the remaining items and consequently continued the consideration of this application to its meeting of May 27, 1997. At it meeting of May 27, 1997, the Planning Commission adopted the following resolutions recommending approval of a General Plan Amendment and denial of the Planned Development Permit, the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map and the Site and Architectural Approval. General Plan Amendment: The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3089, with a 4-3-0 vote recommending approval of an amendment to change the Land Use Designation of the project site fi.om Destination Commercial to Public/Semi-Public to accommodate a minimum four acre open space component and to Industrial for the remaining balance (up to 19.5 acre) portion of the site. The Planning Commission's resolution additionally incorporates conditions regarding the open space placement and accessibility. Three of the dissenting Commissioners indicated that they favored between 7-10 acres of open space versus 4 acres. Application of Ken Neumeister, on behalf of WTA Development June 3, 1997 Page 3 The recommended Public/Semi-Public land use was not originally a part of the applicant's request and was not noticed as such before the Planning Commission. If the City Council is supportive of an open space component as recommended by the Planning Commission, this application will need to be referred back to and re-noticed before the Planning Commission. Development Applications: The Planning Commission did not support the development applications (Planned Development Permit, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, and Site and Architectural Approval) because the project design did not incorporate a minimum four acre open space component as recommended with the General Plan amendment and because the requirement for such a component would significantly impact the site plan. The number and size of the lots, the location and arrangement of the proposed buildings and the square footage of buildings and number of parking spaces could all be impacted with the establishment of a four acre open space component as a part of this project. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution Nos. 3090, 3091 & 3092 with a 5-2-0 vote recommending denial of the Planned Development Permit, the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map and the Site and Architectural Approval. FISCAL IMPACT The Redevelopment Agency has entered into a Development and Disposition Agreement(DDA) which provides for the sale and development of the entire project site for research and development purposes, conditioned on the City's granting of the necessary land use approval. If the City Council wishes to pursue an open space component of approximately four acres, this action will likely affect the terms and conditions of the DDA and the City Council should direct Redevelopment Staff to review the implications of such a change on the terms and conditions of the DDA. ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve the project as submitted by the applicant: Certify the SEIR and approve the original General Plan Amendment, Planned Development Permit, Vesting Tentative Map, and Site and Architectural Approval without the requirement to set aside a minimum 4.0 acre portion of the site for open space. 2. Deny the applications as submitted by the applicant: Continue the application: If the City Council finds that additional information is necessary from the applicant, the City Council may continue this application so that additional information or modifications to the proposal may be presented. Application of Ken Nemneister, on behalf of WTA Development June 3, 1997 Page 4 ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter from the Applicant dated - May 29, 1997 City Council Actions 2. Draft Resolution Certifying the SEIR 1996 for this project and adopting a statement of overriding consideration. 3. Draft Ordinance amending the Land Use Element of the General Plan and adopting development policies for the project site (GP 96-02). 4. Draft Resolution denying a Planned Development Permit, subject to the conditions of approval, (PD 96-06). 5. Draft Resolution denying a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, subject to the conditions of approval, (TS 97-01). 6. Draft Resolution denying a Site and Architectural Application, subject to the conditions of approval, (S 97-05). Planning Commission Actions 7. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3088 (Recommending SEIR 1996 certification) 8. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3089 (Recommending amendment to thc Land Usc Element of the General Plan from Commercial to Industrial and Public/Semi- Public) 9. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3090 (Recommending denial ora Planned Development Permi0 10. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3091 (Recommending denial of a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map) 11. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3092 (Recommending denial of Site and Architectural Application) 12. Planning Commission Draft Minutes for May 13 and May 27, 1997 (Minutes of April 22 and April 30, 1997, were provided under separate cover) 13. PC Staff Reports for May 13 and May 27, 1997 (Reports for April 22 and 30, 1997, were provided under separate cover) 14. Environmental Documents (1991 EIR, 1996 SEIR-Draft and Final) were provided under separate cover 15. Reduced Plans (TS~H Architects, dated 2/7/97) were provided under separate cover ~ I~1 _ Prepared by: Tim J.~y,~ociate Planner SteveXl~iasecki, Community Development Director /'~Direetor Approved by: BT];a/ar/ard M~/Manager Attachment #1 %..": WTA DEVELOPMENT M~. C.~1 70 Car Re In 29~ 1997 Kirk Heinrichs y of Campbell Redevelopment Agency North First Street ~pb~]l, CA 95008-1423 'Former Winchester Drive-In Site ~r Kirk: light of ~ecent Planning Commission and community concerns for th9 need of additional open space, we would be willing to further ex, lore the possibility of incorporating a publicly accessible' pa~k on the site provided'that: lar. bu., pax bus Pha fal our The portion of the sate used for the park dpes not exceed .3.8' 'es, and that the general location of the park is adjacent to percolation pond as specified on the attached site plan.. The park be for "passive" recreation, be abundantly dscaped and generally complement a research and development in. ss park. Therc is on-site parking within thc park and lir~ited street king along the public road. There is no commercial parking along =he public roaO (to it overflow parking from Cristich Lane especially from trucks,' il.rs and buses). WTA Development would be involved in the park design luation process to ensur~ that thu park i~ oompatible with in,ss park. Completion of the park would coincide with =he completion of se One of our project. Our concern is that the land not sit low for an extended period of time, which would detract fror~ project. We Kirk Heinrichs 29, 1997 An adjustment An the purchase price, as f,,r off-site improvements and redesign costs, n~goKiated. Security and liability issues' ~ust'.be addressed (this ~ clude some =~e of scrmening/f~c~g to separate ~e p~k fr~ t~ e project). ... ... 9. WTA Development woul~ not be ~ec:ed to contr~ute =~ar~s :~e development/construction of ~e park. W9 want ~o work with both ~e City ~d c~~ty ~o ~e~lop a p~oject that will benefit mll ~ose ~l~d, but we need =o be s~re that what is left for our devel~nt ~ feas~e f~b'oeh a~ economic and ~rketability st~o~='.: ' As ~gine, we are a~itlonal funds to revise the site pi~ ~d aPPlication~fore a re~olu=ion of =he p?ndipg iitiga~on. ~e~ore, we ~t s~ t~e of assurance that if we c~ come to ~ agre~nt ~gar~ng Kh~ addition of an open space ~ent, ~at o~ project w~i be approved in an e~editious ~ner. have had an excellent wor~ng relati~ship wi~ ~e City an~ we' ~ues in good faith. you have any questions, please ~o not hesitate :o call. well as consideratl°n' ....', would have to Me re- Ho%~ard J. White, III Mar~aging Member Planning Commission Minutes of May 27, 1997 Page 10 enough for large two-story home. The applicant wanted to subdivide. The whole situation is different and not applicable to this one. Commissioner Alne disagreed in that two-story residences were not allowed due to privacy concerns. Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that with the Latimer project, there was an oppommity to negotiate the issue. There is no oppommity to negotiate in this instance. The Ordinance allows two- story. The Variance request allowed negotiation on one-story versus two-story structures. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Gibbons, seconded by Commissioner Lowe, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3094 to allow the Reinstatement (R 9%03) of a previous Site and Architectural Approval (S 95-12) to allow a new single-family home on property located at 1270 Burrows Road, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Alne, Gibbons, Jones, Kearns, Lowe, Meyer-Kennedy NOES: None ABSENT: Lindstrom ABSTAIN: None Chairwoman Kearns called for a 10 minute recess at 8:30 p.m. Chairwoman Keams reconvened the meeting at 8:47 p.m. Chairwoman Keams read Agenda Item No. 1 into the rex:ord. GP 96-03/PD 96-06/ TS 97-01/S 97-05 Neumeister, K. Ae aJ Continued Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Ken Neumeister, on behalf of WTA Development & Huettig & Sehromm, Inc., for approval of the following applications for property located at 535 Westchester Drive (formerly the Winchester Drive-In Site) in a PD (Planned Development) Zoning District and 571 McGlincey Lane in an M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District: A General Plan Amendment (GP 96-02) to consider a change in the Land Use Element of the General Plan from Destination Commercial to Industrial. A Planned Development Permit (PD 96-06) to allow the construction ora 330,000 square foot research and development park. A Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (TS 97-01) to allow the Planning Commission Minutes of May 27, 1997 DRAFT Page 11 creation of five lots. A Site and Architectural Approval (S 97-05) to allow the construction of two off premise signs and landscaping at the McGlincey Lane entrance to the site. Find that this project is consistent with the project previously described in the Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. A Supplemental EIR was prepared for this project and was certified by City Council at its meeting of January 7, 1997. Chairwoman Kearns advised that the Public Hearing remained open at the conclusion of the May 13, 1997, Planning Commission Meeting. She asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak. Chairwoman Keams closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director, provided the staffupdate: · To date, three public meetings have been held: April 22, 1997; April 30, 1997 and May 13, 1997. · On April 22, 1997, public testimony was heard. · On April 30, 1997, the Commission gave staff direction to include open space fi.om four to seven acres. · On May 13, 1997, the Commission could not reach a majority decision and continued the application to this meeting. · The proposed General Plan Amendment became necessary when the Council approved the DDA. · Council is seeking Planning Commission input on the merits of changing the zoning fi.om Commercial to Industrial. · The first question to consider is whether the Commission believes that industrial land use on this site is appropriate. · An open space component can be included. Including a 4 to 7 foot open space leaves the applicant's plan reasonably feasible. · If the General Plan Amendment is appropriate, the second question is whether the Planned Development Permit is appropriate? · If the General Plan Amendment is appropriate, which conditions are necessary? · If the Commission finds the General Plan Amendment is not appropriate, the Commission should deny the PD application. · Reminded the Commission that Commissioner Gibbons has listened to the meeting tape fi.om the May 13, 1997, meeting which she was unable to attend. Therefore, she is now prepared and able to consider and vote on this project. · Stated that Commissioner Gibbons has expressed concern that 27% landscaping of this site is too low. · A second issue is that the traffic projections don't correspond with the parking provided on site. · Advised that the number of employees allowed on this site can be restricted. Planning Commission Minutes of May 27, 1997 DR FT Page 12 · Additionally, parking can be reduced to correspond with a reduced number of employees. · Suggested that the Commission discuss the land use issue first. Second, the merits of the Planned Development and under what conditions it might be acceptable. · The Amendment to the General Plan can: · Change use from Commercial to Industrial without an open space component; or · Change use from Commercial to Industrial with an open space component. · If the Commission reaches a majority, the project can be sent to City Council. Commissioner Lowe questioned how the employee limitations could be enforced. Mr. Steve Piasecki advised: · That a Condition of Approval could be added to the Planned Development Permit which states that the number of employees cannot exceed a certain number. · The condition could be recorded as a covenant on the property. · Employee counts can be obtained. Commissioner Lowe asked what happens with the space. Do the buildings remain vacant? Mr. Steve Piasecki replied that the buildings do not remain vacant. It simply means that a larger square footage of building space per employee is available. Commissioner Gibbons stated that there are mechanisms available to limit employees. One is the having a parking ratio of one space for every 400 square feet of space. Commissioner Alne questioned how the restriction on employees can be handled as this project consists of five lots. If one of more of the lots is sold to another owner, how is the restriction on the number of employees applied? Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that if the Commission gets to that point, the Commission can direct staff to provide a correlation between the square footage versus the number of employees. Additionally, the covenant can be applied to each lot. Commissioner Alne also stated that employee use of public transportation might cause a reduced need for parking and allow more employees on site. Mr. Steve Piasecki again stated that the convenant would be in effect. Mr. Tim J. Haley, Associate Planner, provided the following report: · Advised that he has reviewed two similar projects in Campbell. · Hacienda Business Park was developed in the early 1980's at Hacienda and Dell Avenues. The project includes 27% landscaping, mostly located along the street frontages and throughout the parking lot. · The Old Campbell Lumber Yard, located at Campbell and Winchester, has 22% landscaping. Planning Commission Minutes of May 27, 1997 DRAFT Page 13 Two projects in Cupertino were evaluated. The Apple headquarters buildings have 34% landscaping, including hardseape areas. The HP project on Homestead Road has 39% landscaping. Commissioner Gibbons asked whether the 27% landscaping includes hardscape areas such as plazas between the buildings? Mr. Tim J. Haley advised that the two plaza areas, including water features and seating, are counted in the landscaping percentages. Commissioner Gibbons asked how trees are calculated. Mr. Tim J. Haley advised that the tree wells are four feet by four feet. There is a heavy concentration of trees. At first it will look like a lot ofhardseape until the trees mature. Chairwoman Keams sought clarification from the Commission as to whether they felt that the Industrial land use was appropriate. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy stated that she has no problem with the change from Commercial to Industrial land use but that she does want some open space. She suggested four acres, including the percolation ponds. Commissioner Jones asked how many acres were the percolation ponds. Mr. Steve Piasecki replied that the percolation pond portion that would be useable as part of this open space is from one to one and a half acres. The other portions of the percolation ponds are not immediately available. Commissioner Gibbons stated that she supports the General Plan Amendment to change land use from Commercial to Industrial. Commissioner Lowe stated that seven acres is an appropriate amount of open space, not including the percolation ponds. Commissioner Jones stated that he agreed with Commissioner Lowe. Said that the City should set aside as much land as possible. In fact, seven acres might be light. Commissioner Alne stated that he preferred including enough open space to make the industrial use of the site impractical. Suggested 10 acres or more of open space plus the percolation ponds. Chairwoman Keams stated that she is in favor of the industrial use with the inclusion of some open space. Suggested leaving it to Council as to how much open space. Expressed concern about maintenance of the open space. Planning Commission Minutes of May 27, 1997 DRAFT Page 14 Commissioner Gibbons stated that the reason she supports four acres of open space is that she is recommending a change in the proportion of landscaping on the site. Commissioner Lowe asked if she was referring to the open space as landscape area. Commissioner Gibbons replied that open space component does not mitigate thc need for additional landscaping on the site. Chairwoman Kcams stated that it appears that there is consensus in approving thc General Plan Amendment to Industrial with an open space component ranging from four to ten acres. Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that the Commission can close and decide on this issue as there appears to be consensus on the Industrial land use and open space component. Commissioner Lowe stated that thc Commission should not be worried about budgetary concerns about park maintenance. Whether the City can or cannot afford to maintain park space is not the purview of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Gibbons:· Stated that while she agreed it is not the purview of the Commission, it is a relevant concem. · Development of the site is costly. · Too large an open space component could cause the project to collapse. · Four acres offers an oppommity for the City to obtain open space. Commissioner Lowe stated his concern that the ratio of park area in Campbell is the lowest in the Bay Area. Commissioner Gibbons: · Advised that she would not veto a larger park. · Suggested eliminating the beginning part of Finding No. 4-B of the General Plan draft resolution, "Although the site is not easily accessible,..." · Suggested adding Finding 4-E to read, "The provision of a significant open space area of a contiguous acreage, bordered by the public street created as part of this project, provides access for the public to the site." · Suggested adding Finding 4-F to read, "The specific location and configuration of the open space area, of a minimum four acres, exclusive of the percolation ponds, will best suit the needs of the industrial users and the neighborhood is refined as part of the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Process." · Stated that no road configuration should go through the public open space. · Suggested that the Commission vote against the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map without a proper reconfiguration of the plan. Either place the project on hold or deny until the project is legally clarified. DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes of May 27~ 1997 Page 15 Commissioner Alne stated that four acres of open space is the most allowed without requiring a significant change to the DDA or development plan. A seven to ten acre open space requires a significant redo of the plans. Mr. Steve Piasecki admitted that four acres leaves enough land to develop the project while seven or more acres will require more significant changes in the project. Commissioner Lowe again asked about the landscaping ratio of 27%. Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that the hardscape is counted among the 27% of landscaping. Commissioner Gibbons reminded about the 50-foot boundary of landscaping between the mobile home park and the project site. She suggested making a motion. Commissioner Lindstrom stated that it is proper to make a motion and allow discussion. Commissioner Jones stated that he agrees that too large a open space risks killing this project. He stated that if this was the best decision for the City and it kills the deal, so be it. Once the project is built, the land is gone forever. Caution is the better way. Commissioner Alne agreed. Commissioner Gibbons stated that Commissioner Jones makes a good point. She added that the development is proposed to be built in stages. This gives some control which can be utilized to advantage. Commissioner Alne asked if the 50-foot buffer was really required. Commissioner Gibbons stated that the Commission has no control over this aspect. The buffer is a positive feature and increases the percentage of landscaping. Commissioner Alne asked if there would be public access to this space (buffer)? Commissioner Gibbons replied, "Good question." She said that it would be prudent to go through each motion, one by one. Wondered why the developer could not be made responsible for maintenance of the open space. City Attorney Seligrnann stated that the nexus question is whether this development is creating the need for this park space right here. Mr. Steve Piasecki added that the Commission is a recommending body that is saying to Council that the industrial use of this site, with open space, is appropriate. If Council agrees, the project will come back to the Commission for a noticed hearing. Planning Commission Minutes of May 27, 1997 DRAFT Page 16 City Attorney Seligmann added that the Commission can make any recommendation it wants. If re-noticing is necessary, it will come back for another look by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Alne stated that the Planning Commission is a body making governmental decisions which require public notification. Can the Commission really go ahead at this point? City Attorney Seligmann again stated that the Commission could continue to consider this application. He added that the Planning Commission is not making a final recommendation. The project would come back to the Commission before it could be final. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Gibbons, seconded by Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 3089, recommending approval of a change in the Land Use Element of the General Plan (GP 96-02) from Destination Commercial to Industrial/Public/Semi-Public with modified findings provided by Commissioner Gibbons, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Gibbons, Kearns, Lindstrom, Meyer-Kennedy NOES: Alne, Jones, Lowe ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chairwoman Keams asked for discussion regarding the Planned Development Permit. Commissioner Gibbons: · Said that she wanted to make a couple of points. · As currently worded, the conditions of approval are for development of a 330,000 square foot project. · Approval of a PD also acts as a Site review. · Asked if open space and the proposed project could be accommodated on the project site? · Said that if it is the consensus of the Commission to go forward, she has many comments. If it is not the consensus to go forward, there is no point in her making her comments. Commissioner Jones questioned how the project can be reviewed when four acres have been removed from the site for use as open space? Said he can't conceive how to vote. Mr. Steve Piasecki said that there are several options including a statement that the project is not to exceed 330,000 square feet. The project can be moved along although some adjusting will be required in the furore. Commissioner Alne asked why consideration of public access from Pasco de Palomas has never been analyzed by staff?. Planning Commission Minutes of May 27, 1997 DRAFT Page 17 Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that when the project began, it was determined that there is ample access off McGlincey. There was no reason to impact the private dirveway as there is acceptable access to McGlincey Lane. The Traffic Engineer has determined that McGlincey can handle the traffic generated by this project. Commissioner Alne again asked why the possibility of accessing the site directly from Union Avenue, using the private drive, was not even examined? Mr. Peter Eakland, Traffic Engineer: · Stated that the projected traffic is consistent with industrial collector streets within the City. · It is appropriate for its purpose. · The traffic increase is just 3.2% · Traffic will stay within an acceptable range. · There are no traffic impacts that cannot be mitigated. Commissioner Alne again asked why there has been no analysis of the use of this alternative (Pasco de Palomas access to site)? Is there any merit to the idea? Mr. Peter Eakland replied that the there would be negative traffic impacts on Pasco de Palomas. Mr. Steve Piasecki wondered if the other Commissioners shared this concern. Commissioner Alne again asked why no consideration of this option was taken. Chairwoman Keams suggested that the allowable square footage be reduced. Commissioner Gibbons: · Suggested either making a motion to deny or to approve with specific terms. · At the present time the project described is not consistent with the General Plan action just taken. · Since the project site has been reduced by 17% with the open space component, the square footage could be reduced by 17%. Commissioner Alne stated that the lack of specificity is unacceptable. Commissioner Lowe said he agreed. Commissioner Jones also concurred. Commissioner Gibbons: · Suggested a motion to deny. Planning Commission Minutes of May 27, 1997 DRAFT Page 18 · Stated that if Council overrides the denial, the project might get approved without benefit of Commission input. · Suggested a refinement of the motion with modified findings. · Said that it was not appropriate for Council to lose the benefit of comment by the Commission. · Suggested that the motion include: · Denial is made because of inconsistency. · Plans need to restrict parking · Landscaping should be increased to 33% · With the phased development of the site, a Condition should be added that provides for additional traffic analysis at time of building permits for each phase to ensure that traffic impacts are consistent. · Suggested 24 gallon trees be required in place of the current 15-gallon trees. · Suggested that 36-inch box trees be required for each removed tree. · Suggested fencing with a sound level of 50db. · Asked why one year of landscaping maintenance is required? Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that the one year maintenance agreement for public right-of-way landscaping is to ensure that the plant materials are healthy and growing. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy asked why the Commission is denying instead of approving with the conditions outlined by Commissioner Gibbons. Commissioner Gibbons replied that at this time, the Commission has no idea what this project is going to be. Mr. Steve Piasecki stated that the suggested reduction in allowable square footage equals approximately 277,000 square feet. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy said that it is important that the Commission have oppommity to review the ultimate project for this site. What is the best action to take to ensure that the Commission have that opportunity? Mr. Steve Piasecki answered that a condition requires that the project comes back to the Commission. Specifics must come back. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy asked what happens upon approval or denial by Council. Mr. Steve Piasecki answered if Council denies the project, it dies. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy asked whether the project would come back to the Commission if Council approves it? Planning Commission Minutes of May 2.7, 1997 DRAFT Page 19 Mr. Steve Piasecki: Advised that if the Commission recommends approval, it can add a condition that the project come back to the Commission with specific plans. · If the Commission denies the application, it is important to provide its concerns regarding landscaping/sound walls, etc. · The four acre open space can be reasonably accommodated. Commissioner Alne stated that there is a host of issues. Denial is the only way to go. The project does not go with the General Plan action just taken. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Gibbons, seconded by Commissioner Alne, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 3090, recommending denial of a Planned Development Permit (PD 96-06) to allow the construction of a 330,000 square foot research and development park on property located at 535 Westchester Avenue and 571 McGiincey Lane, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Alne, Jones, Lindstrom, Lowe, Gibbons Kearns, Meyer-Kennedy None None City Attorney Seligmann advised that the recommendation of denial will now go forward to Council. If Council approves the project, it does not have to honor the Conditions of Approval. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Alne, seconded by Commissioner Lowe, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 3091 recommending denial of the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (TS 97-01) and Resolution 3092, recommending denial of a Site and Architectural Approval (S 97-05) to allow the construction of two off-premise signs and landscaping at the McGlincey Lane entrance to the site, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Alne, Gibbons, Jones, Lindstrom, Lowe NOES: Kearns, Meyer-Kennedy ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None REPORT OF THE COMMUNITy DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR The written report of Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director, was accepted as presented with the following additions: · Advised that SARC on Thursday may either have to begin later or another Commissioner attend. Commissioners Alne and Lindstrom will attend SARC beginning the meeting at 5 p.m. instead of 4 p.m. There is one item for review. Attachment #7 RESOLUTION NO. 3088 BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING COMNIISSION RECOMN~NDING THE CERTIFCATION OF A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SEIR-1996) AND MAKING FINDINGS REQUIKED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT IN THE CONSIDERATION OF A PROJECT TO REDEVELOP THE FORMER WINCHESTER DRIVE-IN SITE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 535 WESTCHESTER DRIVE AND 571 McGLINCEY LANE. RESOLVED, by the City of Campbell Planning Commission that: WHEREAS, the following recitals summarize information more fully set forth in the attached Exhibit A, which is incorporated in this Resolution by this reference. Various capitalized terms used in this Resolution are more fully defined in Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, in June 1992, the City Council certified an environmental impact report (the "1992 EIR") that evaluated the environmental impacts of development of a proposed destination retail center on the Property; and WHEREAS, in April 1994, the Campbell Redevelopment Agency ("Agency") acquired the Property and thereafter conducted land use and economic feasibility studies and a developer selection process, from which WTA Development was selected to negotiate a disposition and development agreement (a "DDA") for development of the Property; and WHEREAS, WTA Development has proposed development on the Property of an approximately 330,000 square foot research and development and light industrial business park with related on-site and off-site improvements (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, there are no subsequent changes proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the SEIR; and WHEREAS, no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the SEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and WHEREAS, no new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the SEIR was certified as complete; and Planning Commission Resolution No. 3088 535 Westchester/571 McGlincey Lane Page 2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that a supplement or subsequent EIR or addendum to the SEIR is not necessary because only minor additions or changes have occurred that do not require subsequent review consistent with Sections 15162, 15163 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, because the Project contains land uses that vary fi.om the land uses evaluated in the 1992 EIR, the City has caused preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (the "1996 SEIR") in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Local CEQA Implementing Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the 1996 SEIR builds upon and incorporates analysis fi.om the 1992 EIR that was certified by the City Council and that remains valid, while providing new analysis of environmental impacts that will be different as a result of the change in land use proposed for the Project; and WHEREAS, the 1996 SEIR has been expressly prepared to serve as the CEQA document for City Council consideration of the Planning Approvals; and WHEREAS, the City Council serves as the "lead agency" and the Agency serves as a "responsible agency" under CEQA in the preparation and certification of the 1996 SEIR; and WHEREAS, through this resolution, the Planning Commission desire to comply with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Local CEQA Implementing Guidelines in the consideration, certification, and use of the 1996 SEIR in connection with their consideration of the Planning Approvals. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Planning Commission finds that the above recitals and the information contained in Exhibit A are accurate. 2. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council find and certify that the 1996 SEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the Local CEQA Implementing Guidelines; that the 1996 SEIR adequately addresses the environmental issues of the Project; and that the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the 1996 SEIR prior to acting on the Project and the discretionary approvals necessary for the development of the Project. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3088 535 Westchester/571 McGlincey Lane Page 3 3. The Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that the 1996 SEIR reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission. 4. The Planning Commission hereby identifies the significant effects, adopt the mitigation measures, adopt the monitoring program to be implemented for such mitigation measures, and make the findings set fomh in detail in the attached Exhibit A. The statements, findings and determinations set forth in Exhibit A are based on the above certified 1996 SEIR and other information available to the Planning Commission, and are made in compliance with Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines and Section 21081 (a) of the California Public Resources Code. 5. As detailed in ]~xhibit A, approval and implementation of the Project may have a significant unavoidable environmental impact related to exceeding carbon monoxide standards at two intersections and, as a result the City Council may approve the Planning Approvals only if, in connection with such approvals, the City Council make a statement of overriding considerations in accordance with Sections 15092 and 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines and Section 21081(b) of CEQA, which is set forth as Exhibit B, hereto and recommended herewith. 6. Based on the information set forth in Section V.B of Exhibit A, the Planning Commission finds pursuant to 14 California Code of Regulations Section 753.5(c) that, considering the record as a whole, approval and implementation of the Project involves no potential for adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on vegetation or wildlife, and that therefore no fee is required in connection with the filing of a Notice of Determination with respect to the 1996 SEIR. 7. The Community Development Director is authorized and directed to file the appropriate Notices of Determination and Notices of Fee Exemption in connection with the 1996 SEIR and the Planning Approvals (if approved). APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION: Passed and adopted this 30th day of April, 1997 by the following vote: AYE S: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: Gibbons, Jones, Kearns, Lindstrom, Meyer- Kennedy Alne, Lowe None None Planning Commission Resolution No. 3088 535 Westchester/571 McGlincey Lane Page 4 Attachment #8 RESOLUTION NO. 3089 BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR APPROXIMATELY 20 ACRES FROM COMMERCIAL TO INDUSTRIAL AND APPROXIMATELY FOUR (4) ACRES FROM COMMERCIAL TO PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 535 WESTCHESTER DRIVE AND 571 McGLINCEY LANE. APPLICATION OF MR. KEN NEUMEISTER, ON BEHALF OF WTA DEVELOPMENT AND HEUTTIG & SCHROMM, INC. FILE NO. GP 96-02. After notification and public hearing, as specified by law, and after presentation by the Community Development Staff, the environmental consultant and Redevelopment Staff, proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed. After due consideration of all evidence presented, the Planning Commission finds as follows with respect to application GP 96-02: The proposed land use change from Commercial Destination to Industrial and Public/Semi-Public continues a land use pattern which is consistent with surrounding existing and planned in the area. Commercial Destination use is not viable or desirable to potential developers because the site is difficult to find, access is circuitous and the site lacks visibility normally desired by commercial developments. Industrial and Public/Semi-Public is consistent with the policies and objectives of the Circulation Element in that the traffic patterns and intensity is within the capacity of surface streets in the area and the project specific traffic mitigation measures will minimize traffic impacts. ° The proposed land use change for a four acre portion of the site to Public/Semi- Public will provide the opportunity for open space in this area and: The establishment of a four acre public open space area adjacent to the percolation ponds on the south side of the project site is removed from the adjacent mobile home park residents. B. The open space component helps the surrounding residential and industrial neighborhood in achieving the communities' open space objectives. C. Development of an open space area adjacent to existing groundwater recharge ponds may allow joint development of a larger open space area. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3089 GP 96-02 - 535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 2 De The provision of a significant open space area for thc project site will allow usc of the open space by industrial users as well as the surrounding residents and will enhance the industrial development. The provision of a significant open space area of a contiguous acreage, bordered by the public street created as part of this project, provides access for the public to the site. The specific location and configuration of the open space area of a minimum four acres, exclusive of the percolation ponds, will best suit the needs of the industrial users and the neighborhood as refined through the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Process. The proposed land use change is consistent with the Housing Element in that Campbell's Housing Element is certified by the State and there are no substantial negative impacts of Industrial and Public/Semi-Public uses vs. Commercial Destination uses. Also, the City will continue to maintain a reasonable balance between jobs created and housing provided. This site is not desirable for residential uses because of noise generated from the adjacent Highway 17 and the surrounding industrial uses in the area make it difficult to create a desirable living environment. o Development of open space on a portion of the site will provide some open space for the area east of Highway 17, even though the site does not meet the site acquisition criteria described in the Open Space Element. The proposed land use change is consistent with the Noise Element of the General Plan in that the proposed project will create less noise than alternative land uses such as Destination Commercial or Commercial Recreation given that activities are confined indoors or are so located on the site to minimize noise impacts on adjacent users. This is consistent with goals and objectives identified in the Noise Element. 9. An industrial land use on the entire site does not provide for mixed uses on this site. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the Planning Commission further finds and concludes that: The proposed mix of industrial and open space land uses results in an appropriate use of the land. (Information is not available to draw other conclusion of other land usES.) Planning Commission Resolution No. 3089 GP 96-02 - 535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 3 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of May, 1997, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Commissioners: Commissioners: Commissioners: Commissioners: Gibbons, Lindstrom, Lowe, Meyer-Kennedy Alne, Jones, Lowe None None APPROVED: Susan A. Kearns, Chair ATTEST: Steve Piasecki, Secretary Attachment #9 RESOLUTION NO. 3090 BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (PD 96-06) TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 330,000 SQUARE FOOT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PARK ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 535 WESTCHESTER DRIVE AND 571 McGLINCEY LANE. APPLICATION OF MR. KEN NEUMEISTER, ON BEHALF OF WTA DEVELOPMENT AND HEUTTIG & SCHROMM, INC. FILE NO. PD 96-06. After notification and public hearing, as specified by law, and after presentation by the Community Development Staff, the environmental consultant, Redevelopment Staff proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed. After due consideration of all evidence presented, the Planning Commission finds as follows with respect to application PD 96-06: The proposed project 'is not consistent with the recommended General Plan Land Use recommendation. The Planning Commission lacks sufficient information to evaluate the effects of reducing the project area. With the phased development of the site, a Condition should be added that provides for additional traffic analysis at time of building permits for each phase to ensure that traffic impacts are consistent. It is suggested that 24-gallon trees be required in place of the current 15-gallon trees. 5. Sound wall should achieve a sound level attenuation of 50db. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the Planning Commission further finds and concludes that: The proposed development and uses as presented will not result in a highly desirable environment and use of the land. The development, as proposed, will not aid in the harmonious development of the immediate area. The development, as proposed, will not enhance the health, safety or welfare of the neighborhood or the City as a whole. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3090 PD 96-06 - 535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of May, 1997, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Commissioners: Commissioners: Commissioners: Commissioners: Alne, Gibbons, Jones, Lindstrom, Lowe Kearns, Meyer-Kennedy None None APPROVED: Susan A. Keams, Chair ATTEST: Steve Piasecki, Secretary Attachment #10 RESOLUTION NO. 3091 BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF A VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP (TS 97-01) TO ALLOW THE CREATION OF FIVE LOTS ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 535 WESTCHESTER DRIVE AND 571 McGLINCEY LANE. APPLICATION OF MR. KEN NEUMEISTER, ON BEHALF OF WTA DEVELOPMENT AND HEUTTIG & SCHROMM, INC. After notification and public hearing, as specified by law, and after presentation by the Community Development Director, proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed. After due consideration of all evidence presented, the Planning Commission did find as follows with respect to application TS 97-01. 1. The proposed project is not consistent with the recommended General Plan Land Use recommendation. 2. The Planning Commission lacks sufficient information to evaluate the effects of reducing the project area. o With the phased development of the site, a Condition should be added that provides for additional traffic analysis at time of building permits for each phase to ensure that traffic impacts are consistent. 4. It is suggested that 24-gallon trees be required in place of the current 15-gallon trees. 5. Sound wall should achieve a sound level attenuation of 50db. Based on the foregoing findings of fact, the Planning Commission further finds and concludes that, subject to the imposed conditions: 1. The proposed subdivision will not result in a desirable use of land. 2. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with the interests of the community as a whole. 3. The site is not physically suitable for the proposed type of development and the proposed lot pattern. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3091 TS 97-01 - 535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of May, 1997, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Commissioners: Commissioners: Commissioners: Commissioners: Alne, Gibbons, Jones, Lindstrom, Lowe Kearns, Meyer-Kennedy None None APPROVED: Susan A. Kearns, Chair ATTEST: Steve Piasecki, Secretary Attachment #11 RESOLUTION NO. 3092 BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF A SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL (S 97-05) TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO OFF-PREMISE SIGNS AND LANDSCAPING AT THE McGLINCEY LANE ENTRANCE TO THE SITE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT $71 MeGLINCEY LANE. APPLICATION OF MR. KEN NEUMEISTER, ON BEHALF OF WTA DEVELOPMENT AND HEUTTIG & SCHROMM, INC. FILE NO. S 97-05 After notification and public hearing, as specified by law, and after presentation by the Community Development Staff, environmental consultant, Redevelopment Staff, proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed. After due consideration of all evidence presented, the Planning Commission finds as follows with respect to application S 97-05: The proposed project is not consistent with the recommended General Plan Land Use recommendation. The Planning Commission lacks sufficient information to evaluate the effects of reducing the project area. o With the phased development of the site, a Condition should be added that provides for additional traffic analysis at time of building permits for each phase to ensure that traffic impacts are consistent. It is suggested that 24-gallon trees be required in place of the current 15-gallon trees. Based on the foregoing findings of fact, the Planning Commission further finds and concludes that: The establishment, maintenance or operation of the use will be detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use and be detrimental or injurious to the property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City. The proposed project will not aid in the harmonious development of the surrounding environment. o The proposed use is not compatible with the surrounding uses in the area, subject to the Conditions of Approval. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3092 S 97-05 -535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 2 The conditions of approval are roughly proportional and reasonably related in nature and extent to the impacts of the project. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of May, 1997, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Commissioners: Commissioners: Commissioners: Commissioners: Alne, Gibbons, Jones, Lindstrom, Lowe Keams, Meyer-Kennedy None None APPROVED: Susan A. Keams, Chair ATTEST: Steve Piasecki, Secretary Item No. 1 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 27, 1997 GP 96-02/PD 96-06/ TS 97-01/S 97-05 Neumeister, K. Continued Public hearing to consider the application of Mr. Ken Neumeister, on behalf of WTA Development and Huettig & Schromm, Inc., for approval of the following applications for property located at 535 Westchester Drive (formerly the Winchester Drive-In Site) in a PD (Planned Development) Zoning District and 571 McGlincey Lane in an M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District: A. A General Plan Amendment (GP 96-02) to consider a change in the Land Use Element of the General Plan from Destination Commercial to Industrial. B. A Planned Development Permit (PD 96-06) to allow the construction of a 330,000 square foot research and development park. C. A Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (TS 97-01) to allow the creation of five lots. D. A Site and Architectural Approval (S 97-05) to allow the construction of two off-premise signs and landscaping at the McGlincey Lane entrance to the site. E. Certification of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR1996) for this Project. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission take the following actions based on the discussion of the Commission at the meetings of April 30, 1997, and May 13, 1997: Adopt a Resolution, incorporating the attached findings, recommending that the City Council APPROVE a General Plan Amendment (GP 96-02) for the project site from Destination Commercial to Industrial and Public/Semi-Public, incorporating a map amendment and text changes in the Development Policies as provided in Attachment "A"(note that this option incorporates an open space component); and Adopt a Resolution, incorporating the attached findings, recommending that the City Council APPROVE a Site and Architectural Approval (S 97-05), which affects the entrance driveway area, subject to the attached conditions; and o Adopt a Resolution, incorporating the attached findings, recommending that the City Council APPROVE a Planned Development Permit (PD 96-06) with an open space area of 3.5 - 4.0 acres; and Staff Report - Planning Commission Meeting of May 27, 1997 GP 96-02/PD 96-06/TS 97-01/S 97-05 - 535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 2 Adopt a Resolution, incorporating the attached findings, recommending that the City Council APPROVE a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (TS 97-01) with the condition that an additional parcel be created to accommodate a 3.5 - 4.0 acre open space area and the other parcel sizes be reduced accordingly. BACKGROUND On April 30, 1997, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3088 recommending certification of the SEIR for this project. During the heating the Commission expressed its desire to see a 4-7 acre publicly accessible open space area incorporated into the project. The Planning Commission directed staff to prepare the appropriate resolutions to reflect the Commission's comments. Staff prepared the attached resolutions and presented them at the meeting of May 13, 1997. The Commission could not reach a decision on whether to proceed with the applications and the amount of open space, if any. The Commission continued the applications to the meeting of May 27, 1997. The attached Resolutions provide an option for approval of the General Plan Amendment with a 3.5 - 4.0 acre open space component; approval of the Site and Architectural Application for the off-premise signs and entrance driveway treatment and approval of the Planned Development Permit and Vesting Tentative Map provided they are adjusted to incorporate a 3.5 - 4.0 acre open space area. It is staff's belief that 3.5 - 4.0 acre open space feature located adjacent to the groundwater recharge ponds can be incorporated into the development with minimal disruption. A larger open space area or open space located in other areas of the site would be more disruptive and probably could not be easily incorporated without significant redesign. However, this is the Planning Commission's recommendation and the Planning Commission can recommend a larger area to the City Council, if you wish. The southern location provides minimal disruption of the applicant's plan and the oppommity to expand the open space approximately 1-3 acres by landscaping and providing trails around the pond area. With the amount of parking proposed it may be possible to accommodate some of the open space area by eliminating parking and allowing the developer to build a project approximating the size and layout of the original proposal. This alternative will meet the objectives of incorporating an open space feature and allowing the developer to pursue a reasonably comparable industrial development. The attached conditional approvals incorporate the stipulation that the Planned Development Permit will be returned to the Planning Commission and City Council for final site and architectural approval prior to release of building permits. The vesting tentative map must come back to the City Council for final approval prior to recordation. Staff Report - Planning Commission Meeting of May 27, 1997 GP 96-02/PD 96-06/TS 97-01/S 97-05 -535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 3 The southem location also has the advantage of being detached from the mobile home park and closer to the main entrance to enhance access to the open space from the Union Avenue neighborhood. It should be pointed out that even in this location a park will be within ½ mile of relatively few of the residents in the Union Avenue area. The southern location has the advantage that it can be designed to complement the industrial project by enhancing the entry and giving the development more of a landscaped "campus" setting. The attached land use diagram accompanying the General Plan resolution illustrates a 3.5 - 4.0 acre open space area on the project site adjacent to the Santa Clara Valley Water District Groundwater Recharge Ponds. If a larger open space is desired, the Commission should simply specify the size in its motion and the exhibits presented to the City Council will be modified. Staff will prepare denial resolutions for the applications should the Commission determine that the above described open space options do not meet your objectives and all industrial land use designation is not a desirable change from commercial. Combining Applications and Legal Advertisement At the meeting of May 13, 1997, a concern was raised that the Commission should first consider the requested General Plan Amendment before proceeding with a assessment of the Planned Development Permit. Also, a concern was raised that the application should be re-advertised since the Commission was discussing an open space option and the legal notice only addresses a proposed change from commercial to an industrial use. Combining Applications The City encourages applicants to submit combined applications for several reasons: 1) It streamlines the application review consistent with the intent of the Permit Streamlining Act. 2) Persons invited to participate in the public heatings can see the entire application and provide comments at one time, rather than being invited to participate in a series of public hearings, in order of application priority. 3) The Planning Commission can see the entire proposal, rather than review it piecemeal. 4) Staff agrees that the Commission should reach a decision on the General Plan Amendment (GPA) first. The Commission's review of the Planned Development Permit (PDP) and the Vesting Tentative Map (VTM) must be based on the action taken on the General Plan Amendment. Therefore, if you recommend denial of the General Plan Amendment you should also recommend denial of the PDP and the VTM. The converse is not necessarily true, you could recommend approval of the GPA and recommend approval or denial of the PDP and/or VTM. Staff Report - Planning Commission Meeting of May 27, 1997 GP 96-02/PD 96-06/TS 97-01/S 97-05- 535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 4 The bottom line is the Commission's options are open and the combined application process allows the City to expedite the application review and minimize the inconvenience to the public who may wish to participate in the public hearings. Legal Notice The legal notice advertised review of a GPA to consider changing the General Plan from commercial to industrial. The notice was structured this way because the City Council entered into a Disposition and Development Agreement that identified this land use option. The City Council reserves the right to authorize or define the parameters of General Plan Amendments that it is willing to consider. Staff suggests the Commission can still forward a recommendation for an open space component in the 4-7 acre range discussed at the April 30, 1997 meeting. The City Council can review that recommendation and either approve the original application or a portion thereof and/or retum the application for a review of the open space component. The City Council would maintain all options and clearly understand the Commission recommendation and the applications would move forward in an expeditious fashion. The option of re-advertising the public hearing would delay the application while the Planning Commission reviews land use options that may not interest the City Council. The Planning Commission should proceed with its recommendation to the City Council based on the current notice, even if the Planning Commission feels an open space component should be incorporated. The Council can then determine if it agrees and refer the application back if it is necessary to re-advertise the application. Attachments 1. Draft Resolution for Approval of GP 96-02 2. Draft Resolution and conditions of approval for PD 96-06 3. Draft Resolution and conditions of approval for TS 97-01 4. Draft Resolution and Conditions of Approval for S 97-05 Submitted 1 · S~~tev~ Development Director Attachment RESOLUTION NO. BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM A COMMERCIAL USE TO A MIXED USE OF INDUSTRIAL AND PUBLIC/SEMI- PUBLIC ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 535 WESTCItESTER DRIVE AND 571 McGLINCEY LANE. APPLICATION OF MR. KEN NEUMEISTER, ON BEHALF OF WTA DEVELOPMENT AND HEUTTIG & SCHROMM, INC. FILE NO. GP 96-02. After notification and public hearing, as specified by law, and after presentation by the Community Development Staff, the environmental consultant and Redevelopment Staff, proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed. After due consideration of all evidence presented, the Planning Commission finds as follows with respect to application GP 96-02: The proposed land use change from Commercial Destination to Industrial and Public/Semi-Public continues a land use pattern which is consistent with surrounding existing and planned uses and helps in achieving the open space needs of the surrounding area. Commercial Destination use is not viable or desirable to potential developers because the site is difficult to find, access is circuitous and the site lacks visibility normally desired by commercial developments. Industrial and Public/Semi-Public is consistent with the policies and objectives of the Circulation Element in that the traffic patterns and intensity is within the capacity of surface streets in the area and the project specific traffic mitigation measures will minimize traffic impacts. The proposed land use change for a 3.5-4 acre portion of the site to Public/Semi- Public will provide the opportunity for a park in this area and: A. The establishment of a 3.5 to 4 acre public open space area adjacent to the percolation ponds on the south side of the project site is removed from the adjacent mobile home park residents. B. Although the site is not easily accessible, an open space component helps in achieving the open space deficiency identified in the Open Space Element of the General Plan for this neighborhood. Planning Commission Resolution No. __ GP 96-02 - 535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 2 C. Development of an open space area adjacent to existing groundwater recharge ponds may allow joint development of a larger open space. D. The provision of a significant open space area for the project site will allow use of the open space by industrial users as well as the surrounding residents and will enhance the industrial development. The proposed land use change is consistent with the Housing Element in that Campbell's Housing Element is certified by the State and there are no substantial negative impacts of Industrial and Public/Semi-Public uses vs. Commercial Destination uses. Also, the City will continue to maintain a reasonable balance between jobs created and housing provided. o This site is not desirable for residential uses because of noise generated from the adjacent Highway 17 and the surrounding industrial uses in the area make it difficult to create a desirable living environment. o Development of a public park on a portion of the site will further the objectives of the Open Space Element toward meeting open space needs in the area, even though the site does not meet the site acquisition criteria described in the Open Space Element. Also, while the site is poorly located for a public park, few options remain in the Union Avenue/McGlincey Lane area for open space. o The proposed land use change is consistent with the Noise Element of the General Plan in that the proposed project will create less noise than alternative land uses such as Destination Commercial or Commercial Recreation given that activities are confined indoors or are so located on the site to minimize noise impacts on adjacent users. This is consistent with goals and objectives identified in the Noise Element. The proposed land use change to only an industrial land use does not provide for the open space needs of the area and limits an opportunity for mixed uses on this site. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the Planning Commission further finds and concludes that: The proposed mix of industrial and open space land uses results in an more appropriate use of the land than would be possible with other land use designations. Planning Commission Resolution No. __ GP 96-02 - 535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 3 2. The mix of industrial and public/semi-public land use is compatible with the General Plan of the City and will aid in the harmonious development of the immediate area. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of May, 1997, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Commissioners: Commissioners: Commissioners: Commissioners: APPROVED: Susan A. Keams, Chair ATTEST: Steve Piasecki, Secretary General Plan Amendment to change the Land Use Element designation from (Destination Commercial) to (Industrial and Public Semi-Public) I I I I I IIIWl iii! High Densi~ Residential (21-27 ~ alu/ac) ', · mil m · · m m m m m mmmmmm lllllllllI IIIiii IIIIii I!1111 ',--,--,~----~111111 ~""'-'-'-~--------.e-.--IIIilll ~ ..'"'~--'-~: I I I I I i I ~--~11111111111~ IIIIIIIIlll[ ~11111111111~ IIIIIIIiiiif mmmmmlmmmmm/ · I m I I i i i i i; Public/Semi-PubH Industr/al __ ~.$ to 4 acre open space(Public/Semi-Public)J DEVELOPMENT POLICIES A. Land Use The land use is limited to industrial and open space uses. Industrial uses for the purposes of this site are defined as those uses permitted in the Controlled Manufacturing Zoning District. Open Space uses shall provide an area of approximately 3.5 to 4 acres for public use and shall be located to minimize impacts on adjacent mobile home park residents. Examples of Controlled Manufactur- ing uses are: a. Administrative, executive and financial offices; b. Manufacture, assembly, packag- ing or distribution of products from previously prepared materials such as cloth, plastic, paper, leather, metal, precious or semiprecious materials or stones; c. Manufacture of electric or electronic instruments and devices such as television, radio, phonographic equipment, computers and computer components; d. Manufacture of pharmaceuticals and food products; e. Research and development laboratories and offices; f. Warehousing and distribution facilities including mini-storage; g. Commercial recreation and athletic facilities, including but not limited to health spas, gyms, tennis, handball, racquetball and batting range; h. Restaurants, when intended primarily to serve the immediate industrial area; i. Retail businesses compatible with the CM zone. o The planned development permit application shall master plan development of the entire site. B. Development Intensity A floor area ratio (FAR) of approximately .35 is anticipated for this site. In conjunction with consideration a specific development application and a public hearing, the City Council may authorize a FAR of up to .40 with the following findings: a. The additional FAR will not adversely affect the adjoining uses. b. The additional FAR will not adversely affect the local circulation system. c. The use characteristics are substantially similar to those envisioned by this General Plan Amendment. d~ Adequate parking can be provided on-site. C. Traffic and Access 1. Development on this site requires a detailed traffic analysis which studies project traffic impacts on the local circulation network including appropriate intersections and neighbor-hoods in adjoining jurisdictions. The City should consult with the adjoining jurisdictions to identify the inter- sections and neighborhoods to be studied. 2. In conjunction with a development application for this site, the applicant shall submit information regarding off-site improvements proposed to mitigate traffic impacts and to improve site access. Details Special Project Areas - Winchester Drive-In Site shall be provided on road improvement and intersection modifications. The developer shall examine methods to ensure safe and convenient pedestrian linkage to the neighboring residential areas. D. Noise 1. Noise-generating facilities such as loading docks and mechanical equipment should be located away and/or buffered from residential areas. 2. A sound wall shall be constructed where the site adjoins residential uses. 3. Public open space area shall be located at the southerly end of the site. E. Landscaping 1. The future development should provide a landscape buffer along the westerly property line to create an attractive appearance when viewed from Highway 17. 2. Dense landscaping shall be provided along property lines abutting residential uses. The landscaping should block views of the development and ensure privacy for residents. 3. Landscaping should be provided throughout the parking areas to provide shade and visual relief. The developer is encouraged to provide planters at the ends of parking aisles and to intersperse planters within the aisles. 4. Landscaping should also be provided to filter views of the building mass. F. Parking The developer should provide data on the parking demand for the specific use. G. Signage The developer shall submit a sign program. The sign program shall include: a. Off-site directional signs consistent with the Sign Requirements. b. Criteria for the placement and size of building identi-fication signs consistent with the Sign Regulations for industrial uses. Special Project Areas - Winchester Drive-In Site Attachment 2 RESOLUTION NO. BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (PD 96-06) TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 330,000 SQUARE FOOT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PARK AND SET ASIDE 3.5 - 4.0 ACRES FOR AN OPEN SPACE AREA, ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 535 WESTCHESTER DRIVE AND 571 MeGLINCEY LANE. APPLICATION OF MR. KEN NEUMEISTER, ON BEHALF OF WTA DEVELOPMENT AND HEUTTIG & SCHROMM, INC. FILE NO. PD 96-06. After notification and public hearing, as specified by law, and after presentation by the Community Development Staff, the environmental consultant, Redevelopment Staff proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed. After due consideration of all evidence presented, the Planning Commission finds as follows with respect to application PD 96-06: The proposed 330,000 square foot research and development park and on-site and off-site improvements are consistent with the project description provided in the 1996 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (1996 SEIR) prepared for this project. On January 7, 1997, the City Council found and certified that the 1996 SEIR has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and the Local CEQA Implementing Guidelines; that the 1996 SEIR adequately addresses the environmental issues of the project; and that the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the information in the 1996 SEIR, prior to making any recommendations to the City Council on the project and for the discretionary approvals necessary to the development of the project. The proposed project, subject to the proposed conditions of approval, incorporates a logical site layout and circulation pattern, sufficient landscaping and an attractive architectural design and should incorporate a 3.5 to 4.0 acre open space into the project design. The proposed lot arrangement, as conditioned, allows for the creation of six industrial lots along a private street. The proposed street layout and driveway locations addresses the circulation needs and anticipated traffic. The improvements of local infrastructure including storm drainage facilities, water supply and roadway improvements will aid and encourage the redevelopment of neighboring industrial properties. Planning Commission Resolution No. __ PD 96-06 - 535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 2 The site layout does not preclude provision of a pedestrian/bicycle overpass over Highway 17 from the project site to the Los Gatos Creek Trail. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the Planning Commission further finds and concludes that: The proposed development and uses as presented will result in a highly desirable environment and use of the land. The development and uses are compatible with the recommended Mixed-Industrial and Public/Semi-Public Land Use and will aid in the harmonious development of the immediate area. o The development, as proposed, will enhance the health, safety or welfare of the neighborhood or the City as a whole. The applicants are hereby notified, as part of this application, that they are required to meet the following conditions in accordance with the Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the State of California. The lead department with which the applicant will work is identified. Additionally, the applicants are hereby notified that they are required to comply with all applicable Codes and Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the State of California that pertain to this development and are not contained herein. SITE AND BUILDING DESIGN: Approved Project: This approval is granted to construct a 330,000 square foot research and development complex on a 23.5 acre site identified as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 412-29-007, 412-30-035, 412-30-042 and 412-30-043. Development shall be substantially as shown on the project and exhibit materials listed below, except as may be modified by conditions contained herein: (Planning) mo Use of building for research and development. The proposed research and development and industrial use shall substantially comply with the use description provided in the applicant's letter dated February 10, 1997. The proposed uses shall be conducted entirely with the interior of the buildings and not in the parking area, driveways or landscape areas sun'ounding the buildings, except for the on site parking and loading. Exterior storage yards and exterior tank or processing areas are not permitted with this approval. Planning Commission Resolution No. __ PD 96-06 - 535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 3 Building use to be restricted to administrative and private offices, conference and training areas, and complementary engineering/research development, testing and assembly areas, including warehousing and shipping/receiving areas. B. Project plans prepared by TSH Architects (25 pages) dated 2/7/97. C. Project description by Huettig & Schromm dated 2/10/97. Revised Plans and Elevations: Revised elevations and/or site plan indicating the following changes: A. Site Plan: Landscaping along Highway 17 Frontage: Upgrade landscaping along the Highway 17 frontage of the project through working with CALTRANS to provide tree planing 40' o.c. Plan approval is required, prior to building occupancy and planting installation to be completed within one year of building occupancy. Landscaping of Percolation Ponds: Enter into an agreement with the City of Campbell, wherein mutual participation of upgrading the landscaping around the percolation ponds adjacent to the project site is achieved. Specific plans to be approved by the Santa Clara Valley Water District and plan approval and installation to be completed within five (5) years of project approval. Fencing: The proposed fencing along Highway 17 frontage to be a black vinyl clad 6' to 8' cyclone fence. Applicant to investigate the provision of an open style fence along the southerly property line adjacent to the percolation pond and along the project entrance. Fencing plan to be approved by the Site and Architectural Review Committee in conjunction with the landscaping and irrigation plan prior to the issuance of building permits. B. Elevations: Applicant to introduce a building plane offset of approximately two (2) feet or to add an additional trellis element for the concrete wall features on Buildings A, B and C. Planning Commission Resolution No. __ PD 96-06 - 535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 4 2. Applicant extendsion of the concrete parapet treatment at building comers where the radius bullnose treatment is shown. 3. All roof-mounted equipment to be screened by the proposed parapet walls or feature walls at the building entrances. 4. Applicant to install additional pillar treatments at the building entrances for Buildings A, B, D and E. 5. Applicant to investigate the modification of the glass roof screen on Buildings D and E to parallel the decorative metal screen. Co Transportation Demand Management: Applicant to participate in a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program for future tenants and to incorporate participation in such program through the covenants, conditions and restrictions. This program to incorporate, but is not limited to the following: 1. Provision of Bicycle Parking Facilities. 2. Provision of on-site food service facilities. o Participation in shuttle/car pool service to public transit facilities such as light rail stations or park and ride lots when these facilities are constructed. 4. Accommodation of bus stop locations, if public bus service is provided to the site. Hours of Operation: Hours of operation shall be limited to 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. (Planning) A. Employee access to the site shall not be limited by hours of operation. B. Delivery hours shall be restricted per the project description. Trucking access will not be permitted from 11 p.m. to 6:30 a.m. Operation hours of exterior activities (i.e. loading and unloading, outdoor recreation) to be limited to the hours of 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. for Buildings C, D and E. Planning Commission Resolution No. __ PD 96-06 - 535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 5 LANDSCAPING Landscaping Plan: Landscaping plan indicating type and size of plant material and location of the irrigation system to be submitted to the Planning Department and approved by the Site and Architectural Review Committee prior to issuance of building permits. The minimum size of trees and shrubs planted on-site, except as modified by conditions contained herein, shall be as follows: A. Trees shall be a minimum of 15 gallon. Twenty four inch box trees shall be required as a mitigation measure for all removed trees. B. Shrubs shall be a minimum of 5 gallons with the exception of accent shrubs that shall be a minimum of 1 gallon. C. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit a tree protection plan shall be submitted for all retained trees on the site. The landscape plan shall comply with the City's Water Efficient Landscape Standards (WELS). A WELS checklist shall be submitted with the final landscape plan. (Planning) o Screening of Mobile Home Park: The applicant shall install a minimum 6' precast concrete fence along the property line adjacent to the mobile home park. The applicant shall submit a report from a acoustical engineer verifying that the height and the materials of the proposed fence provides adequate sound attenuation as recommended by the SEIR o Tree Retention and Removal: Applicant to submit a tree protection plan prior to any grading and clearing of the project site. Any trees to be removed to be replaced consistent with the WELS standards for tree replacement. STREET/SITE IMPROVEMENTS o Parking 'and Driveways: All driveways and parking areas to be improved in compliance with Chapter 21.50 of the Campbell Municipal Code Lighting Plan: Lighting from the site shall not spill over to adjoining properties. A revised lighting plan, indicating that lighting will not spill over to the adjoining properties and that the average intensity of lighting does not exceed one foot candle, shall be submitted to the Planning Department and approved by the Community Development Director (CDD)prior to the issuance of building permits. (Planning) Planning Commission Resolution No. __ PD 96-06 - 535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 6 10. Soils and Geologic Report: A soils and geologic report shall be submitted to the Planning Department and Public Works Department for review prior to the issuance of building permits. The report shall include the investigation of the site's potential for surface rupture, ground acceleration and liquefaction. The study shall recommend measures to reduce the potential for seismic hazards. (Planning/Public Works) PROPERTY MANAGEMENT/UTILITIES 11. Property Maintenance: Before and during construction, the site shall be kept free of weeds, trash and litter.(Planning) 12. Garbage Collection: Ordinance No. 782 of the Campbell Municipal Code stipulates that any contract for the collection and disposal of refuse, garbage, wet garbage and rubbish produced within the limits of the City of Campbell shall be made with Green Valley Disposal Company. This requirement applies to all single-family dwellings, multiple-family dwellings and all commercial, business, industrial, manufacturing and construction establishments. (Fire) 13. Trash Containers: Trash storage method(s) of a size and quality necessary to serve the development shall be located in area(s) approved by the Fire Department. Any enclosure(s) located outside the building and loading area shall consist of a concrete floor surrounded by a solid wall or fence and have self-closing doors of a size specified by the Fire Department. All enclosures to be constructed at grade level and have a level area adjacent to the trash enclosure area to service these containers. (Fire/Planning) PUBLIC SAFETY/WELFARE 14. Handicapped Requirements: Applicant shall comply with all appropriate State and City requirements for the handicapped. (Building) 15. Underground Utilities: Underground utilities to be provided as required by Section 20.36.150 of the Campbell Municipal Code. (Public Works) 16. Utility Boxes and Back-Flow Preventers: Applicant to submit a plan to the Planning Department, prior to installation of PG&E transformer boxes and San Jose Water Company back-flow prevention devises, indicating the location of the boxes and screening (if boxes are above ground) for approval of the CDD. (Planning) 17. Equipment Screening: All mechanical equipment on roofs and all utility meters to be screened and approved by the CDD. (Planning) Planning Commission Resolution No. __ PD 96-06 - 535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 7 18. Roof Equipment: The applicant shall supply noise specifications for all mechanical equipment proposed. The applicant shall supply an updated noise study to verify that noise generated by the roof mounted equipment is not audible at the property line shared with existing residential uses and that the equipment complies with the following: A. The Campbell Noise Element standards. B. Should the noise level exceed Campbell standards, the noise report shall specify mitigation measures.(Planning) 19. Utility Connections: Plans submitted to the Building Division for plan check shall indicate clearly the location of all connections for underground utilities including water, storm and sewer, electric, telephone and television cables, etc. (Building) 20. Construction Hours and Dust Mitigation: A. Hours of construction shall be limited to 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, unless an exception is granted by the Building Official. B. The construction site shall be sprinkled with water as necessary, but not less than twice per day to control dust. C. Haul trucks and material stockpiles shall be covered. D. The construction area and surrounding streets shall be swept as necessary but not less than once daily. (Planning) 21. Sewer: Comply with requirements of the West Valley Sanitation District for sewer hook up and utilities. (Planning) 22. NPDES Permit: Applicant is advised that the Regional Water Quality Control Board will require that all construction on sites larger than five acres will require the project to be covered by an NPDES permit. Permit conditions may require construction and post-construction stormwater management plans. The applicant is responsible for obtaining this permit and paying associated fees and providing plans as required. 23. Parking Lot Sweeping: Sweeping of the parking lot shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. Noise from sweeping equipment shall comply with the Campbell Noise Element Standards. Planning Commission Resolution No. __ PD 96-06 - 535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 8 24. Signing Program: Applicant to submit a signage program plan for approval of the Community Development Director for the project site, prior to the installation of any signage. Signing program to provide details and criteria for all exterior project signage and to include the following: a. Off-site directional signage for the project at the project entry at McGlincey Lane. b. Building/tenant identification signage. All signage to comply with Chapter 21.53 of the Campbell Municipal Code. PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS 25. Map Requirements: Prior to issuance of any building permits for the site, the applicant shall prepare and submit a Final Tract Map for review by City Engineer and recordation upon City approval. The current fee for processing the Final Tract Map is $1,380 plus $25/lot. Applicant shall provide all documents as required for review and approval of the Final Map. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the applicant must provide evidence from each utility and special district that they approve of the filing of the Final Map as submitted, that the easements shown on the map are adequate for each utility to serve the proposed development and that the procedure for abandonment of any existing easements is acceptable. 26. Dedication to CiW: Prior to approval of the final map, the applicant shall dedicate, acquire land for dedication and/or obtain dedications as necessary to accommodate construction of the required street improvements for: the 45' public street access to McGlincey Lane; the 50' public street within the site; the fight of way needed to construct the intersection of these streets as shown on the approved tentative map; and the fight of way/easements necessary (15' minimum) to construct the storm drain line through the development. Applicant shall prepare all documents necessary to obtain the dedications and/or remove any existing easements, provide all information required for reviewing these documents and shall pay all costs associated with obtaining the required dedications and/or easements and recordation of these dedications. Should it be necessary for the City to implement eminent domain proceedings in order to obtain right-of-way, the applicant shall pay all costs associated with the condemnation proceedings, including attorney's fees. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the applicant must determine the adequacy of the existing storm drainage easement along Paseo de Palomas. If an additional easement is needed, A minimum 15' storm easement will be required. If the Planning Commission Resolution No. __ PD 96-06 - 535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 9 27. 28. existing easement is not adequate for construction of the proposed parallel/upsized storm drain from the site to the existing system in Union Avenue, the applicant shall provide all documents necessary for the City to obtain this easement. These documents shall include all engineering plans, plats and descriptions of the easement required for construction of this storm drain facility. Storm Drain Area Fee: Prior to issuance of any building permits for the site, the applicant shall pay the required storm drain area fee of $2,500/acre. Grading and Drainage Plan: Prior to approval of the final map or issuance of any building permits for the site, the applicant shall conduct hydrology studies as necessary, prepare grading and drainage plans and pay fees required to obtain necessary grading permits for the site. Grading plans shall include the procedure to be followed for abandonment of existing utility lines. Hydrology studies, grading and conceptual storm drainage plans shall include the public access road from McGlincey to the site. Storm drainage plans shall include existing invert and top of pipe elevations of the SCVWD culvert crossing the proposed roadway. Hydrology studies and storm drainage design shall include the drainage area bounded by Highway 17 to the west, Curtner Avenue to the south, the Mobile Home Park and westerly edge of the area drained and the existing storm drain in McGlincey Lane easterly of the development to the east. The storm drainage study for this drainage area shall include removal, replacement and/or installation of new storm lines as needed in McGlincey and Cristich Lanes to connect to a new and/or upsized storm drainage line required through the development, through the Paseo de Palomas private road and ultimately connecting to the existing storm drainage facilities in Union Avenue. Completion of this design is required to determine the appropriate size, location and invert elevations of the storm drainage facilities to be constructed on site that will allow for the future construction of the off-site storm drainage improvements in McGlincey Land and Cristich Lane. The applicant shall be required to construct only the portions of this storm drainage facility that are on-site and the connection to the existing system in Union Avenue through the Paseo de Palomas private road. The applicant shall provide a "stub- out" to Cristich Lane to allow for the future storm drain construction off-site. Planning Commission Resolution No. PD 96-06 - 535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 10 29. Standard Street Improvements: Prior to approval of the final map or issuance of any building permits for the site, the applicant shall prepare plans, pay fees, post securities and provide insurance as required to obtain an encroachment permit to construct public street improvements as required by the City Engineer. Public street improvement plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer licensed in the State of California and shall include but not be limited to the following unless otherwise directed by the City Engineer: · Construction of the 45' public street access to McGlincey Lane to include: 30' of asphalt concrete roadway; a standard marginal 5' sidewalk and a 5' landscaping strip along the east side of the street; a 5" landscaping strip along the west side of the street; no parking signs, signing and striping, standard curb and gutter, storm drainage facilities and street lighting facilities along both sides of the street; construction of driveways as required for existing parcels; and all · Construction of a 50' right of way public street along the southern frontage of the property to include: 30' of asphalt concrete roadway; standard driveway approaches for the entrances to the development; a standard marginal 5' sidewalk; a 5' landscape strip and a 10' Public Utilities Easement along the northern side of the street; a 10' landscaped strip along the southern side of the street; no parking signs, signing and striping, standard curb and gutter, storm drainage facilities and street lighting along both sides of the street. All improvements shall be designed and constructed to allow continuation of the improvements on Cristich Lane and an appropriate temporary terminus shall be designed and constructed at the western end of the new public street. · Construction of the intersections as shown on the approved tentative map and as directed by the City Engineer. Intersection improvements may include sidewalks, handicap ramps, signing, striping and increased street widths as shown on the approved tentative map. All streets and their intersections with access points to the site shall be designed to accommodate all truck turning movements. Improvements at the west end of the new public street shall be constructed to allow for a future connection to Cristich Lane. Street trees shall be of a type that will not grow to encroach or interfere with public traffic. Construction of a complete traffic signal system and equipment, signing, striping, utility relocation and related improvements to provide for signalization of the intersection of Union Avenue and McGlincey Lane. The traffic signal system and equipment shall include but not be limited to: vehicle detection equipment, traffic signal standards, street lighting and electrical services; pavement repair; signing and striping and other components as required by the City Traffic Engineer. Planning Commission Resolution No. __ PD 96-06 - 535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 11 30. 31. 32. 33. · Reconfiguration of the intersection of McGlincey Lane and Curtner Avenue to provide for a free right turn lane from southbound McGlincey to westbound Curtner, a free left turn from westbound Curtner to northbound McGlincey and stop controls for westbound Curtner east of the intersection as directed by the City Engineer. Existing pavement in this intersection may need to be resurfaced to allow for the additional lanes and new striping pattern. · Provide signing, striping and pavement reconstruction at the intersection of McGlincey Land and the new public access road as necessary to provide lane configurations as directed by the City Engineer. · Construction of the storm drain facility extending from Cristich Lane through the development via storm drain easements to connect to the existing system in Union Avenue. ! Construction of storm drain facilities for all public streets including the public access road from McGlincey. Completion of Public Street Improvements: Prior to issuance of occupancy for the site, all public street improvements as required by the encroachment permit must be completed and accepted by the City Engineer and the applicant must provide the one-year maintenance security. Landscaping Maintenance Agreements: Prior to recordation of the final map, the applicant shall prepare and execute a landscape maintenance agreement requiring the development to post securities and maintain all landscaping, irrigation and irrigation facilities, walls and fences within all public areas, including the public access street to McGlincey Lane and the new public access road adjacent to the property. This agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to being executed by both parties and recorded by the City. Underground Utilities: All new on-site utilities shall be installed underground per Section 20.36.150 of the Campbell Municipal Code for any new or remodeled buildings or additions. Applicant shall comply with all plan submittals, permitting and fee requirements of the serving utility company. Applicant shall submit a Utility Coordination Plan and Schedule for approval by the City Engineer for installation of all utilities. The plan shall minimize the damage to all public facilities. Soils Report: Provide a soils report prepared by a registered Geotechnical or Civil Engineer. Planning Commission Resolution No. __ PD 96-06 - 535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 12 34. Title Report: Provide a current Preliminary Title Report. 35. Street Name: The final map shall contain the City-approved street names for the new public streets. 36. Storm Water Management: Comply with the Regional Water Quality Control Board's industrial storm water general permit and California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook, prepared by Storm Water Quality Task Force, Santa Clara Valley Water District. 37. Coordination with Capital Improvement/Other Projects: Applicant shall coordinate with other city improvement projects within the vicinity. Location and installation of off-site improvements that may be required by other districts and utility companies shall be approved by the City. 38. Monumentation: Prior to recording the Final Map, the applicant shall provide security guaranteeing the cost of setting all monuments as shown on the Final Map. 39. Street Improvement Agreement: Prior to the approval of the final map, the applicant shall execute a street improvement agreement and post securities to guarantee the installation of the required street improvements. 40. Notification to Adjacent Properties: Prior to any construction activity on the development, applicant shall notify all adjacent properties, including the management of the adjacent mobile home park. Notification shall include a contact number for the developer which can be used by the property owners during construction should questions or problems arise. FIRE REQUIREMENTS 41. Required Fire Flow: Required fire flow is 7,000GPM at 20 psi. residual pressure. This required fire flow is NOT available from area water mains and fire hydrant(s) which are spaced at the required spacing. This is based on the largest building of 100,000 square feet. 42. Automatic Fire Sprinkler System Required: Buildings requiring a fire flow in excess of 2,000 GPM shall be equipped throughout with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. The fire sprinkler systems shall conform to National Fire Protection Standard #13, 1994 Edition, without the use of exceptions. Planning Commission Resolution No. __ PD 96-06 - 535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 13 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. Final Required Fire Flow: Required fire flow may be reduced up to 50% in buildings equipped with automatic fire sprinkler systems, but can be no less than 1500 GPM. Therefore, the final required fire flow is 3500 GPM at 20 psi. residual pressure. This flow may be taken from any two fire hydrants, on or near the site, so long as they are spaced at a maximum spacing of 250 feet. Public Fire Hydrant(s) Required: Provide 24 public fire hydrant(s) at location(s) to be determined jointly by the Central Fire District and the San Jose Water Company. Maximum hydrant spacing shall be 250 feet and the minimum single flow hydrant shall be 1500 GPM at 20 psi. residual pressure. Fire Apparatus (Ladder Truck) Access Roads Required: Provide access roadways with a paved all weather surface and a minimum unobstructed width of 30 feet, vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, minimum circulating turning radius of 50 feet outside and 35 feet inside, a maximum slope of 10% and vehicle loading of 75,000 pounds. Fire Ladder Truck Set Up Area(s) Option: Provide Fire Department Ladder Truck Set Up Areas with a minimum unobstructed width of 20 feet and a minimum length of 60 feet. Area shall support 75,000 pounds of gross vehicle weight. Area shall be paved or other engineered surfaces may be used with Fire Department approval. Parking Along Roadways: The required width of fire access roadways shall not be obstructed in any manner. Parking shall not be allowed along roadways less than 28 feet in width. Parking will be allowed along one side of the street for roadways 28-35 feet in width. For roadways equal to or greater than 36 feet, parking will be allowed on both sides of the roadway. Roadway widths shall be measured face to face of curb. Parking spaces are based on an 8 foot wide space. Fire Lane Marking Required: Provide marking for all roadways within the project. Markings shall be per fire department specifications. Installations shall also conform to Local Government Standards and Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications A-6. Timing of Required Roadway Installations: Required Roadway installations shall be in place, inspected and accepted by the Fire Department prior to the start of roof construction. Bulk combustible construction materials may not be deliveredto the construction site until installations are completed as stated above. Timing of Required Hydrant Installations: Required Hydrant(s) installations shall be in place, inspected and accepted by the Fire Department prior to the start of roofing construction. Bulk combustible construction materials may not be delivered to the construction site until installations are completed as stated above. Planning Commission Resolution No. __ PD 96-06 - 535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 14 51. Fire Department Key Box Required: Provide an approved fire department key box and appropriate building keys for each building. Installations shall conform with Fire District Standard Detail and Specification K-1. 52. Emergency Gate/Access Gate Requirements: When open, gates shall not obstruct any portion of the required access roadway or driveway width. If provided, all locks shall be fire department approved. Installations shall conform with Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications G-1. 53. Location of Required Fire Protection System(s) Equipment: Location of Fire Hydrants, Fire Sprinkler System(s) Post Indicator Valves (PIV), Fire Department Connections (FDC) and Fire Alarm Equipment shall be coordinated with the Fire Department and the Project Planners. 54. Fire Sprinkler System Alarm Device Monitoring Required: Provide approved type monitoring for all fire sprinkler system alarm devices for each building. 55. Emergency Gate/Access Gate Requirements: When open gates shall not obstruct any portion of the required access roadway or driveway width. If provided, all locks shall be fire department approved. Installations shall conform with Fire District Standard Details and Specifications G-1. 56. Location of Required Fire Protection System(s) Equipment: Location of Fire Hydrants, Fire Sprinkler System(s) Post Indicator Valves (PIV), Fire Department Connections (FDC) and Fire Alarm Equipment shall be coordinated with the Fire Department and the Project Planners. 57. Fire Sprinkler System Alarm Device Monitoring Required: Provide approved type monitoring for all fire sprinkler system alarm devices for each building. 58. Required Plans and Documentation: Final Written Plan for Project Phasing shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review. 59. Graffiti: Any graffiti occurring on the exterior of buildings shall be removed within 48 hours of its appears or request for removal by the City, and the applicant will make a best effort to seal off future access by graffiti taggers. Planning Commission Resolution No. __ PD 96-06 - 535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 15 60. Project Phasing: Project Construction to comply with the following project phasing:. Phase One: Building B and supporting improvements described in the applicant's project description. Construction to commence within one year of City Council approval and to be completed within one year after commencement. Phase Two: Building C and relate improvements. Construction to commence within one year and six months of City Council approval and to be completed within one year of commencement. · Phase Three: Buildings A, D, and E and related improvements. No restriction regarding period of commencement. 61 Open Space Area and Subsequent Review: The applicant shall provide space for a 3.5 - 4.0 acre open space area on the southern end of the site. The applicant shall revise the plans and submit for revised site and architectural approval to the Planning Commission and City Council illustrating how the open space area can be incorporated into the proposed site plan. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of May, 1997, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Commissioners: Commissioners: Commissioners: Commissioners: APPROVED: Susan A. Keams, Chair ATTEST: Steve Piasecki, Secretary Attachment 3 RESOLUTION NO. BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP (TS 97-01) TO ALLOW THE CREATION OF SIX LOTS ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 535 WESTCItESTER DRIVE AND 571 McGLINCEY LANE. APPLICATION OF MR. KEN NEUMEISTER, ON BEHALF OF WTA DEVELOPMENT AND HEUTTIG & SCHROMM, INC. FILE NO. TS 97-01. After notification and public hearing, as specified by law, and after presentation by the Community Development Director, proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed. After due consideration of all evidence presented, the Planning Commission did find as follows with respect to application TS 97-01. The proposed lots are of sufficient size and shape to accommodate the intended mixed uses The proposed map is consistent with the Planned Development Application (PD 96-06) which has been recommended for approval subject to the proposed conditions of approval. The proposed subdivision layout provides sufficient open space to accommodate the intended users of the facility and the surrounding area with inclusion of a 3.5 - 4.0 acre open space area. The design of the proposed subdivision allows for the appropriate grading and drainage facilities, public utility easements, improvement of utilities, and private driveway and access easements necessary to serve these properties. The 1996 SEIR prepared for the development of the project identifies the impacts associated with the development of this site with five industrial buildings Based on the foregoing findings of fact, the Planning Commission further finds and concludes that, subject to the imposed conditions: The proposed subdivision is consistent with the policies and intent of the recommended General Plan Amendment. The proposed subdivision does not impair the balance between the housing needs of the region and the public service needs of the residents and available fiscal and environmental resources; The site is physically suitable for the proposed type of development and the proposed lot pattern. Planning Commission Resolution No. __ TS 97-01 - 535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 2 The design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities. The subdivision of the property does not alter the intensity or impacts of the project as examined in the SEIR previously certified by the City Council on January 7, 1997. o There is no substantial evidence that the subdivision of the property, in-and-of itself, may have a significant effect on the environment. ° The subdivision of the property will not substantially change the proposed project from that examined in the SEIR in any way that would involve new significant environmental effects or a substantially increase the severity of any previously identified significant effects. o The subdivision of the property will not substantially change the circumstances under which the project is undertaken in a way which would involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. The subdivision of the property does not present any new information not previously known at the time the SEIR was certified that would indicate that: a. The project will have any significant effects not previously discussed in the SEIR, or b. That any effects will be substantially more severe; or c. That mitigation measures found not to be feasible would not be feasible; or d. That mitigation measures or alternatives exist that are considerably different from those analyzed in the SEIR. 10. The subdivision does not require any minor additions or changes to the SEIR. Planning Commission Resolution No. __ TS 97-01 - 535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 3 The applicants are hereby notified, as part of this application, that they are required to meet the following conditions in accordance with the Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the State of California. The lead department with which the applicant will work is identified. Additionally, the applicants are hereby notified that they are required to comply with all applicable Codes and Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the State of California that pertain to this development and are not contained herein. PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS Map Requirements: Prior to issuance of any building permits for the site, the applicant shall prepare and submit a Final Tract Map for review by City Engineer and recordation upon City approval. The current fee for processing the Final Tract Map is $1,380 plus $25/lot. Applicant shall provide all documents as required for review and approval of the Final Map. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the applicant must provide evidence from each utility and special district that they approve of the filing of the Final Map as submitted, that the easements shown on the map are adequate for each utility to serve the proposed development and that the procedure for abandonment of any existing easements is acceptable. Dedication to City: Prior to approval of the final map, the applicant shall dedicate, acquire land for dedication and/or obtain dedications as necessary to accommodate construction of the required street improvements for: the 45' public street access to McGlincey Lane; the 50' public street within the site; the right of way needed to construct the intersection of these streets as shown on the approved tentative map; and the right of way/easements necessary (15' minimum) to construct the storm drain line through the development and through the private Paseo de Palomas street. The preferred location for the storm drain easement is parallel to the sanitary sewer easement shown on the vesting tentative map. Applicant shall prepare all documents necessary to obtain the dedications and/or remove any existing easements, provide all information required for reviewing these documents and shall pay all costs associated with obtaining the required dedications and/or easements and recordation of these dedications. Should it be necessary for the City to implement eminent domain proceedings in order to obtain right-of-way, the applicant shall pay all costs associated with the condemnation proceedings, including attorney's fees. Planning Commission Resolution No. __ TS 97-01 - 535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 4 Prior to approval of the Final Map, the applicant must determine the adequacy of the existing storm drainage easement along Paseo de Palomas. A minimum 15' storm easement will be required. If the existing easement is not adequate for construction of the proposed parallel/upsized storm drain from the site to the existing system in Union Avenue, the applicant shall provide all documents necessary for the City to obtain this easement. These documents shall include all engineering plans, plats and descriptions of the easement required for construction of this storm drain facility. Storm Drain Area Fee: Prior to issuance of any building permits for the site, the applicant shall pay the required storm drain area fee of $2,500/acre. Grading and Drainage Plan: Prior to approval of the final map or issuance of any building permits for the site, the applicant shall conduct hydrology studies as necessary, prepare grading and drainage plans and pay fees required to obtain necessary grading permits for the site. Grading plans shall include the procedure to be followed for abandonment of existing utility lines. Hydrology studies, grading and storm drainage plans shall include the public access road from McGlincey to the site. Storm drainage plans shall include existing invert and top of pipe elevations of the SCVWD culvert crossing the proposed roadway. Hydrology studies and storm drainage design shall include the drainage area bounded by Highway 17 to the west, Curter Avenue to the south, the City limits to the east and the existing storm drain in McGlincey Lane easterly of the development to the north. The storm drainage plans for this drainage area shall include removal, replacement and/or installation of new storm lines as needed in McGlincey and Cristich Lanes to connect to a new and/or upsized storm drainage tine required through the development, through the Paseo de Palomas private road and ultimately connecting to the existing storm drainage facilities in Union Avenue. Completion of this design is required to determine the appropriate size, location and invert elevations of the storm drainage facilities to be constructed on site that will allow for the future construction of the off-site storm drainage improvements in McGlincey Land and Cristich Lane. The applicant shall be required to construct only the portions of this storm drainage facility that are on-site and the connection to the existing system in Union Avenue through the Paseo de Palomas private road. The applicant shall provide a "stub- out" to Cristich Lane to allow for the future storm drain construction off-site. Planning Commission Resolution No. TS 97-01 - 535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 5 Standard Street Improvements: Prior to approval of the final map or issuance of any building permits for the site, the applicant shall prepare plans, pay fees, post securities and provide insurance as required to obtain an encroachment permit to construct public street improvements as required by the City Engineer. Public street improvement plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer licensed in the State of California and shall include but not be limited to the following unless otherwise directed by the City Engineer: · Construction of the 45' public street access to McGlincey Lane to include: 30' of asphalt concrete roadway; a standard marginal 5' sidewalk and a 5' landscaping strip along the east side of the street; a 5" landscaping strip along the west side of the street; no parking signs, signing and striping, standard curb and gutter, storm drainage facilities and street lighting facilities along both sides of the street; construction of driveways as required for existing parcels; and all conforms necessary to accommodate the existing improvements on the parcels south of the proposed development. · Construction of a 50' right of way public street along the southern frontage of the property to include: 30' of asphalt concrete roadway; standard driveway approaches for the entrances to the development; a standard marginal 5' sidewalk; a 5' landscape strip and a 10' Public Utilities Easement along the northern side of the street; a 10' landscaped strip along the southern side of the street; no parking signs, signing and striping, standard curb and gutter, storm drainage facilities and street lighting along both sides of the street. All improvements shall be designed and constructed to allow continuation of the improvements on Cristich Lane and an appropriate temporary terminus shall be designed and constructed at the western end of the new public street. · Construction of the intersections as shown on the approved tentative map and as directed by the City Engineer. Intersection improvements may include sidewalks, handicap ramps, signing, striping and increased street widths as shown on the approved tentative map. · All streets and their intersections with access points to the site shall be designed to accommodate all truck turning movements. Improvements at the west end of the new public street shall be constructed to allow for a future connection to Cristich Lane. Street trees shall be of a type that will not grow to encroach or interfere with public traffic. ! Construction of a complete traffic signal system and equipment, signing, striping, utility relocation and related improvements to provide for signalization of the intersection of Union Avenue and McGlincey Lane. The traffic signal system and equipment shall include but not be limited to: vehicle detection equipment, traffic signal standards, street lighting and electrical services; pavement repair; signing and striping and other components as required by the City Traffic Engineer. Planning Commission Resolution No. TS 97-01 - 535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 6 o ° ° 10. · Reconfiguration of the intersection of McGlincey Lane and Curtner Avenue to provide for a free right turn lane from southbound McGlincey to westbound Curtner, a free left turn from westbound Curtner to northbound McGlincey and stop controls for westbound Curtner east of the intersection as directed by the City Engineer. Existing pavement in this intersection may need to be resurfaced to allow for the additional lanes and new striping pattern. · Provide signing, striping and pavement reconstruction at the intersection of McGlincey Land and the new public access road as necessary to provide lane configurations as directed by the City Engineer. · Construction of the storm drain facility extending from Cristich Lane through the development via storm drain easements to connect to the existing system in Union Avenue. ! Construction of storm drain facilities for all public streets including the public access road from McGlincey. Completion of Public Street Improvements: Prior to issuance of occupancy for the site, all public street improvements as required by the encroachment permit must be completed and accepted by the City Engineer and the applicant must provide the one-year maintenance security. Landscaping Maintenance Agreements: Prior to recordation of the final map, the applicant shall prepare and execute a landscape maintenance agreement requiring the development to post securities and maintain all landscaping, irrigation and irrigation facilities, walls and fences within all public areas, including the public access street to McGlincey Lane and the new public access road adjacent to the property. This agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to being executed by both parties and recorded by the City. Underground Utilities: All new on-site utilities shall be installed underground per Section 20.36.150 of the Campbell Municipal Code for any new or remodeled buildings or additions. Applicant shall comply with all plan submittals, permitting and fee requirements of the serving utility company. Applicant shall submit a Utility Coordination Plan and Schedule for approval by the City Engineer for installation of all utilities. The plan shall minimize the damage to all public facilities. Soils Report: Provide a soils report prepared by a registered Geotechnical or Civil Engineer. Title Report: Provide a current Preliminary Title Report. Street Name: The final map shall contain the City-approved street names for the new public streets. Planning Commission Resolution No. TS 97-01 - 535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 7 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Storm Water Management: Comply with the Regional Water Quality Control Board's industrial storm water general permit and California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook, prepared by Storm Water Quality Task Force, Santa Clara Valley Water District. Coordination with Capital Improvement/Other Projects: Applicant shall coordinate with other city improvement projects within the vicinity. Location and installation of off-site improvements that may be required by other districts and utility companies shall be approved by the City. Monumentation: Prior to recording the Final Map, the applicant shall provide security guaranteeing the cost of setting all monuments as shown on the Final Map. Street Improvement Agreement: Prior to the approval of the final map, the applicant shall execute a street improvement agreement and post securities to guarantee the installation of the required street improvements. Notification to Adjacent Properties: Prior to any construction activity on the development, applicant shall notify all adjacent properties, including the management of the adjacent mobile home park. Notification shall include a contact number for the developer which can be used by the property owners during construction should questions or problems arise. CC&R's: Prior to recordation of the final map, applicant to submit a copy of the CC&R's for review and approval by the City Engineer and the Community Development Director. 18. Open Space Parcel: The applicant shall modify the final map to incorporate an additional parcel to accommodate a 3.5 to 4.0 acre open space area and the other parcels shall be reduced in size accordingly. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of May, 1997, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Commissioners: Commissioners: Commissioners: Commissioners: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki, Secretary Susan A. Keams, Chair Attachment 4 RESOLUTION NO. BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL (S 97-05) TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO OFF-PREMISE SIGNS AND LANDSCAPING AT THE McGLINCEY LANE ENTRANCE TO THE SITE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 571 McGLINCEY LANE. APPLICATION OF MR. KEN NEUMEISTER, ON BEHALF OF WTA DEVELOPMENT AND HEUTTIG & SCHROMM, INC. FILE NO. S 97-05 After notification and public heating, as specified by law, and after presentation by the Community Development Staff, environmental consultant, Redevelopment Staff, proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed. After due consideration of all evidence presented, the Planning Commission finds as follows with respect to application S 97-05: The proposed entry signage and landscaping is a permitted use for the site and is consistent with the M-1-S (Light Industrial) zoning designation and Industrial General Plan land use designation for the site. 2. The proposed project is of an appropriate scale and design and is compatible with the existing surrounding uses. 3. The proposed project site is of adequate size to develop the proposed entry feature and street. Based on the foregoing findings of fact, the Planning Commission further finds and concludes that: The establishment, maintenance or operation of the use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, or be detrimental or injurious to the property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City. 2. The proposed project will aid in the harmonious development of the surrounding environment. 3. The proposed use is compatible with the surrounding uses in the area, subject to the Conditions of Approval. Planning Commission Resolution No. S 97-05 - 535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 2 The conditions of approval are roughly proportional and reasonably related in nature and extent to the impacts of the project. Further, the applicants are notified as part of this application that they are required to comply with all applicable Codes and Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the State of California which pertain to this application and are not herein specified. And, that this approval is granted subject to the following Conditions of Approval. Landscaping Plan: Landscaping plan indicating type and size of plant material and location of the irrigation system to be submitted to the Planning Department and approved by the Site and Architectural Review Committee prior to issuance of building permits. The minimum size of trees and shrubs planted on-site, except as modified by conditions contained herein, shall be as follows: A. Trees shall be a minimum of 15 gallon. Twenty four inch box trees shall be required as a mitigation measure for all removed trees. B. Shrubs shall be a minimum of 5 gallons with the exception of accent shrubs that shall be a minimum of 1 gallon. The landscape plan shall comply with the City's Water Efficient Landscape Standards (WELS). A WELS checklist shall be submitted with the final landscape plan. (Planning) Property Maintenance: Before and during construction, the site shall be kept free of weeds, trash and litter.(Planning) o Underground Utilities: Underground utilities to be provided as required by Section 20.36.150 of the Campbell Municipal Code. (Public Works) Utility Boxes and Back-Flow Preventers: Applicant to submit a plan to the Planning Department, prior to installation of PG&E transformer boxes and San Jose Water Company back-flow prevention devises, indicating the location of the boxes and screening (if boxes are above ground) for approval of the CDD. (Planning) o Signing Program: Applicant to submit a signage program plan for approval of the Community Development Director for the project site, prior to the installation of any signage. Signing program to provide details and criteria for all exterior project signage and to include the following: Planning Commission Resolution No. S 97-05 - 535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 3 mo Off-site directional signage for the project at the project entry at McGlincey Lane. Building/tenant identification signage. All signage to comply with Chapter 21.53 of the Campbell Municipal Code. Standard Street Improvements: Prior to approval of the final map or issuance of any building permits for the site, the applicant shall prepare plans, pay fees, post securities and provide insurance as required to obtain an encroachment permit to construct public street improvements as required by the City Engineer. Public street improvement plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer licensed in the State of California and shall include but not be limited to the following unless otherwise directed by the City Engineer: Construction of the 45' public street access to McGlincey Lane to include: 30' of asphalt concrete roadway; a standard marginal 5' sidewalk and a 5' landscaping strip along the east side of the street; a 5" landscaping strip along the west side of the street; no parking signs, signing and striping, standard curb and gutter, storm drainage facilities and street lighting facilities along both sides of the street; construction of driveways as required for existing parcels; and all conforms necessary to accommodate the existing improvements on the parcels south of the proposed development. Planning Commission Resolution No. S 97-05 - 535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 4 o Grading and Drainage Plan: Prior to approval of the final map or issuance of any building permits for the site, the applicant shall conduct hydrology studies as necessary, prepare grading and drainage plans and pay fees required to obtain necessary grading permits for the site. Grading plans shall include the procedure to be followed for abandonment of existing utility lines. Hydrology studies, grading and storm drainage plans shall include the public access road from McGlincey to the site. Storm drainage plans shall include existing invert and top of pipe elevations of the SCVWD culvert crossing the proposed roadway. Hydrology studies and storm drainage design shall include the drainage area bounded by Highway 17 to the west, Curter Avenue to the south, the City limits to the east and the existing storm drain in McGlincey Lane easterly of the development to the north. The storm drainage plans for this drainage area shall include removal, replacement and/or installation of new storm lines as needed in McGlincey and Cristich Lanes to connect to a new and/or upsized storm drainage line required through the development, through the Paseo de Palomas private road and ultimately connecting to the existing storm drainage facilities in Union Avenue. Completion of this design is required to determine the appropriate size, location and invert elevations of the storm drainage facilities to be constructed on site that will allow for the future construction of the off-site storm drainage improvements in McGlincey Land and Cristich Lane. The applicant shall be required to construct only the portions of this storm drainage facility that are on-site and the connection to the existing system in Union Avenue through the Paseo de Palomas private road. The applicant shall provide a "stub- out" to Cristich Lane to allow for the future storm drain construction off-site. o Completion of Public Street Improvements: Prior to issuance of occupancy for the site, all public street improvements as required by the encroachment permit must be completed and accepted by the City Engineer and the applicant must provide the one-year maintenance security. Landscaping Maintenance Agreements: Prior to recordation of the final map, the applicant shall prepare and execute a landscape maintenance agreement requiring the developer to post securities and maintain all landscaping, irrigation and irrigation facilities, walls and fences within all public areas, including the public access street to McGlincey Lane and the new public access road adjacent to the property. This agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to being executed by both parties and recorded by the City. Planning Commission Resolution No. S 97-05 - 535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 5 10. 11. 12. Title Report: Provide a current Preliminary Title Report. Coordination with Capital Improvement/Other Proiects: Applicant shall coordinate with other city improvement projects within the vicinity. Location and installation of off-site improvements that may be required by other districts and utility companies shall be approved by the City. Street Improvement Agreement: Prior to the approval of the final map, the applicant shall execute a street improvement agreement and post securities to guarantee the installation of the required street improvements. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of May, 1997, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Commissioners: Commissioners: Commissioners: Commissioners: ATTEST' APPROVED: Steve Piasecki, Secretary Susan A. Keams, Chair Planning Commission Minutes of May 13, 1997 Page 2 COMMUNICATIONS 1. Conditions of Approval and Resolutions for Agenda Item No. 2. AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS Steve Piasecki advised that the applicants for Agenda Item No. 1 have requested a continuance to the May 274 meeting. Motion: On motion of Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy, seconded by Commissioner Lindstrom, the Planning Commission continued Agenda Item No. 1 (S 97-04/UP 97-02/SA 97-14 - 2000 S. Bascom Avenue - Buca di Beppo). (6-0-1; Commissioner Gibbons was absent.) ORAL REQUESTS There were no oral requests. PUBLIC HEARING Chairwoman Kearns read Agenda Item No. 2 into the record. GP 96-03/PD 96-06/ TS 97-01/S 97-05 Neumeister, K. Continued Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Ken Neumeister, on behalf of WTA Development & Huettig &' Schromm, Inc., for approval of the following applications for property located at 535 Westchester Drive (formerly the Winchester Drive-In Site) in'a PD (Planned Development) Zoning District and 571 McGlincey Lane in an M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District: A. A General Plan Amendment (GP 96-02) to consider a change in the Land Use Element of the General Plan from Destination Commercial to Industrial. B. A Planned Development Permit (PD 96-06) to allow the construction of a 330,000 square foot research and development park. C. A Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (TS 97-01) to allow the creation of five lots. D. A Site and Architectural Approval (S 97-05) to allow the construction of two off premise signs and landscaping at the McGlincey Lane entrance to the site. E. Find that this project is consistent with the project previously described in the Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. A Supplemental EIR was prepared for this project and was certified by City Council at its meeting of January 7, 1997. Planning Commission Minutes of May 13, 1997 Page 3 Commissioner Alne stated that this item should be postponed since there is a slight change to the proposed General Plan Amendment which requires renotification to the public. City Attomey William Seligrnann advised that Commissioner Alne was correct that this aspect of the application would have to be readvertised before Council could take final action. The General Plan Amendment would need to be readvertised for a noticed heating before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Alne stated that he cannot approve a land use issue that is in conflict with the General Plan. The Commission is bound by law. It would be improper to go forward. Chairwoman Keams asked if the Commission could go forward with the consideration of this application. City Attomey William Seligrnann reiterated that any recommendation regarding the public/semi-public land use would have to be noticed before being considered by Council. Commissioner Lindstrom asked if it was possible to discuss the project and decide not to recommend approval of the public/semi-public component of the General Plan Amendment? Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director, reminded again that if the' recommendation included industrial/public/semi-public land use, the readvertisement is necessary. A Site and Architectural Approval will be required for the redesign of the site with a four acre park. Chairwoman Keams stated that on April 22, 1997, the heating was started on this project and public testimony heard. The project was continued to a special meeting on April 30, 1997. At the April 30, 1997, meeting the item was again continued to the May 13, 1997, meeting. Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director: · Clarified a point made about the Dover School site. It has been determined that this school will not be treated as surplus. Therefore, any possible open space use would be joint development with the school district. · At the April 30~ meeting, the Commission provided a diverse recommendation about the size of desired open space in conjunction with this development. · Staff has added a four acre open space component adjacent to the percolation ponds. · Revised draf~ resolutions have been distributed. · As there is a discrepancy in the ratio of parking versus proposed employees on this site, it is probable that parking can be reduced. · Advised that this project has been advertised for the Council meeting of May 20, 1997. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy asked if it was possible for this project to go forward to Council without a Planning Commission recommendation? Planning Commission Minutes of May 13, 1997 Page 4 Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director, offered two options. The first, if no agreement is reached among the Commission, the project can be forwarded to Council without a recommendation. Second, this project can be postponed further if the applicant is willing. If the applicant wants a decision, the Commission can recommend approval or denial of the project. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy stated that if the project goes to Council, the only reason the project would come back to the Commission is if the Council approves the open space element. Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director, stated that if Council agrees in concept, the General Plan aspect is readvertised for a Commission meeting. Council can also approve a land use change for 20 acres and leave four acres without a land use change. Commissioner Alne: · Stated that it seems that the City is trying to tailor the General Plan to fit this specific project. · Said that he was startled to see that staff had implemented the bottom of the range provided by the Commission from three to four acres up to the entire site as open space. Asked why only the smallest open space in the range requested by the Commission? Why no explanation from staff. · Questioned whether staff is incompetent? Or simply lacked integrity? · Suggested that staff is both the applicant and the reviewer of this project which presents a conflict of interest. · Stated that "staff can no longer advise me on this issue. Staff works for us. Staff is not providing the Planning Commission with all the information it needs." · Suggested supplying staff with specific questions to answer and to provide the answers to a Committee comprised of Planning Commission members. · Stated that he has no faith in any of the recommendations from staff. Chairwoman Keams thanked Commissioner Alne for his opinions. Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director: · Reminded the Commission that the recommendations are not staff's but rather came from the previous Planning Commission meetings. · The Commission is free to do what it wishes. · Staff, using the information from the previous meetings, has tried to come up with a potential layout which the Commission is free to change. · Staff's recommendation was for approval of the original project application. Planning Commission Minutes of May 13, 1997 Page 5 Commissioner Alne: · Asked why only a three to four acre open space when a range of seven to ten acres was mentioned. · "The tail is wagging the dog unsuccessfully." · Stated that the roadway of the proposed open space area eats up one of the four acres. · Said that this proposal is an unrealistic response to a specific request from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Lindstrom: · Stated that all of the Commissioners had expressed favor with some portion of the site being industrial with differences in the amount of open space. · The Commission asked for modifications which staff has prepared. · There is no incompetence on staff's part. · The guidance from the Commission was too wide and too vague. · Asked who would be responsible for the maintenance of the open space, the City or the developer? Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director: · Advised that it is likely the City would maintain the open space. · Corrected Commissioner Alne's impression that of the proposed open space, one acre is used up with the roadway. The net area of the proposed open space is 3.6 acres. It can be ' larger. Commissioner Lindstrom: · Stated that the implementation of open space reduces the site and income. · Additionally, it adds an expense to the City for maintenance of the open space. · This open space use is counterproductive to the site. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy: · Agreed with Commissioner Lindstrom that the City is not in a position to maintain this space. · Said that she does not see this spot as a park at all but rather as a green space in the industrial area. · Prefers to see the developer maintain the open space. Commissioner Jones: · Stated that the benefits of open space is mostly for the developer and that the developer should maintain this open space. · Like the idea proposed for the crescent shaped open space. · Said the area is not a good one for a park. Planning Commission Minutes of May 13, 1997 Page 6 Commissioner Lowe: · Disagreed that the area is not a good one for a park. · Pointed out the large amount of high density residential in the area. · Stated that it is very short sighted to allow only four acres as open space. · Asked the Commission to reconsider. Mr. Gordon Reynolds, 3293 Valley Square Lane, San Jose: · Advised that he started coaching eight years ago and this year there is no field available for him to coach at. There is no place to play so their season is over. · Questioned anyone who states that playing fields are plentiful. · Stated that the City of Campbell is the only city in the area without a high school named for it. The City used to have its own fire department. The City used to have open space. This is a City of"used to be's". · This site is within walking distance of the Pnmeyard and downtown. · Questioned how the successful bid for the site was accepted seven months after the close of the bid process. · Stated that the staffs work on this project is bad and that he would fire the staff in private industry. · When it was suggested that the use of the site be voted upon on the April 94 ballot, then City Manager Mark Ochenduszko stated that this would established a dangerous precedent. · They cannot use the Initiative Process since the property is owned by the Redevelopment Agency. · They cannot use the Referendum Process. · Their only action is through the courts. · A group approached then-Congressman Mineta together with Councilmembers Burr and Dougherty to seek Federal fimding. A Joint Powers Agreement with the Open Space Authority and the City of San Jose was refused outfight by the City of Campbell. · The community wants to participate. However, Council does not want an advisory vote because a deal has already been cut. · Stated that the Planning Commission's decision doesn't really matter as Council has already made a decision about this site. · Said that staff has "spoon fed" information. The Commission is being asked to indemnify what staff has done. · Staff has a deficient General Plan. Campbell is one of 48 cities in the State of California operating with a deficient General Plan. · Although the City has more staff than it had when the original General Plan was drafted, the City is asking for more money to bring the General Plan current, to hire consultants. · Stated that the Commission has voted for issues that were illegal. · The City will use the argument that projects were approved because the Commission made the recommendation for approval. The Commission will be left holding the bag. · Once a project is approved by Council, the only thing to do is a Referendum. They have been ready to do so for the last three years. Planning Commission Minutes of May 13, 1997 Page 7 · Stated that this proposal is not really for a light industrial project but rather a research and development park. · This is a land locked piece of property. · Once a decision is made to develop the site, it is gone. · Said that the Planning Commission took an oath to serve the people of Campbell. · Within the City's General Plan is the call for four acres of open space fore every 1,000 in population. · Stated that he finds Jack Fischer Park is not well used as it is only three to four acres. · On the other hand, Westmont High School has lots of people and organized sports occurring on site. · Three and a half acres of open space on the Winchester Drive-In Site will add no value or quality of life. · Asked the Commission to meet the General Plan goals or at least wait until the General Plan update is done. The General Plan is an agreement between the planning office and public officials. · Fifty two percent of people in the City live in apartments without anyplace to go. · Send a message to Council that we want open space. · Stated that the mobile home park has been "sold down the river." Said that instead of spending $1.6 million on improvements to Cristich, it would be cheaper to move some of the mobile homes to allow access directly from Union Avenue. · The City conducted a survey which showed that 69% of the respondents want more parks in the City of Campbell. Mr. Bob Francis, 701 Parkdale Drive, Campbell: · Re-emphasized Commissioner Lowe's point that there is a lot of high density residences in the immediate area of this site. · Kids in this area used to walk to school but now the two local schools are gone. · This resulted in the loss of the Cambrian Little League field. Ms. Suzanne Waher, 1381 Estrellita Lane: · Stated that Councilmember Doherty has distributed a press release in which he recommends issuance of a $10 million bond to keep this land as a park as well as to support "a variety of projects and to improve the quality of life in Campbell." · Said that this press release shows that someone is listening. · Stated that she is terrified of losing this property. · Said that they have found people who would maintain the property. · Using the site for open space could succeed if the bond is passed. · The City only wants dollars. Chairwoman Keams closed the Public Heating for Agenda Item No. 2. Planning Commission Minutes of May 13, 1997 Page 8 Commissioner Lindstrom: · Disagreed that the Commission has been force fed anything and stated his resentment of this implication. · This project has been before us for a long time. · Stated that the Commission represents both sides. Its members are individuals who take in the information provided and make recommendations. · Expressed his displeasure at the threats made by Mr. Reynolds that the Commission is not approaching its role properly. · Stated that he had fought to keep Campbell High School open but is glad he lost now that the Community Center is so well utilized. · Disputed Mr. Reynolds contention that Fischer Park is not being used. It is being well used and he is thrilled by that fact. · The Winchester Drive In Site is a difficult plot of land. · Stated that it is in the best interest of the City to develop the site with a small open space. · The income derived from the sale of the site can be used to save small open spaces at schools. · Stated that he is surprised by the comments and threats made by Mr. Reynolds. · Stated that he would like to see this project forwarded to Council with Planning Commission recommendations. City Attorney William Seligmann asked if it was Commissioner Lindstrom's intent to forward this project to Council without specific recommendations? Commission Lindstrom advised that he was recommending approval of the General Plan Amendment, Planned Development Permit, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map and Site and Architectural Approval. City Attorney William Seligrnann suggested that each item be considered separately. Mr. Steve Piasecki suggested that the Commission may want to discuss where each member stands at this time. Commissioner Lowe asked that each item be voted upon separately. Commissioner Jones: · Discussed the trend of taking a piece of land that used to contain one home and to subdivide it for two to three homes. · Suggested that this site is not the best for a park. However, it is the last large chunk of land in the City. · Stated that he believes the matter should go to a vote as the only logical alternative. · The site has been vacant for years. Planning Commission Minutes of May 13, 1997 Page 9 Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy stated that she is prepared to vote on the project collectively or item by item. Commissioner Alne stated: · That he does not want to vote on all issues together. · Stated that nothing is defined. Things cannot be substantiated. · What space is industrial and what space is open space? · Questioned the need to rush to Council. Motion: Commissioner Lindstrom made the motion to recommend that Council approve GP 96-02, PD 96-06, TS 97-01 and S 97-5 to allow the development of the Winchester Drive-In Site with a Research & Development Park. (The motion died for lack of a second.) Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy, seconded by Commissioner Kearns, the Planning Commission recommended the adoption of a resolution recommending approval of a General Plan Amendment to change the Land Use Element of the General Plan from Commercial to Industrial/Public/Semi-Public on property located at 535 Westchester Drive, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Kearns, Lindstrom, Meyer-Kennedy NOES: Alne, Jones, Lowe ABSENT: Gibbons ABSTAIN: None Chairwoman Keams asked the significance of a tie vote. City Attorney Motion: William Seligmann advised that the motion failed due to a lack of a majority. Upon motion of Commissioner Alne, seconded by Commissioner Lowe, the Planning Commission recommended the adoption of a resolution recommending denial of a General Plan Amendment to change the Land Use Element of the General Plan from Commercial to Industrial/Public/Semi-Public on property located at 535 Westchester Drive, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Alne, Jones, Lowe NOES: Kearns, Lindstrom, Meyer-Kennedy ABSENT: Gibbons ABSTAIN: None Chairwoman Keams advised that the motion failed due to a lack of a majority. Planning Commission Minutes of May 13, 1997 Page 10 Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Lowe, seconded by Commissioner Alne, the Planning Commission recommended the adoption of a resolution recommending denial of GP 96-02, PD 96-06, TS 97-01 and S 9%05 as well as draft resolutions A through E and Planning Commission recommendations I through 4, on property located at 535 Westchester Drive and 571 McGlincey Lane, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Alne, Jones, Lowe NOES: Kearns, Lindstrom, Meyer-Kennedy ABSENT: Gibbons ABSTAIN: None Chairwoman Keams advised that the motion failed due to a lack of a majority. City Attorney William Seligrnann suggested that the Commission could either make a motion to send the project to Council without a recommendation or could continue the application to the next Commission meeting. Commissioner Gibbons would be required to review this evening's meeting tape in order to be prepared to vote at the next meeting. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Alne, seconded by Commissioner Lowe, the Planning Commission recommended a continuance of this application to the Planning Commission meeting of May 27, 1997, by the following roll' call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Alne, Jones, Lowe Kearns, Lindstrom, Meyer-Kennedy Gibbons None Chairwoman Keams advised that the motion failed due to a lack of a majority. Commission Alne questioned the purpose of sending to Council when a noticed heating is still going to be nedded. City Attorney William Seligmann stated that the purpose is the furtherance of debate. Only the General Plan Amendment would need to come back to Council if the open space is implemented. Commissioner Alne asked what the rest of the property (proposed open space area) would be designated. City Attorney William Seligmann replied that the land use would remain Commercial. Commissioner Lindstrom stated that the motion is to forward without recommendation. Nothing is relevant until Council sees the application. Planning Commission Minutes of May 13, 1997 Page 11 Commissioner Alne questioned the need for defined boundaries. City Attorney William Seligmann stated that the proposed boundaries are reasonably defined. It is not a meets and bound description. An engineer would prepare such a description. While it is preferable to have a precise boundary definition, this is sufficient. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy, seconded by Commissioner Lindstrom, the Planning Commission moved to forward this application on to Council without a recommendation, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Kearns, Lindstrom, Meyer-Kennedy Alne, Jones, Lowe Gibbons None Chairwoman Keams advised that the motion failed due to a lack of a majority. Commissioner Lindstrom suggested the reintroduction of the motion for a continuance. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Alne, seconded by Commissioner Lowe, the Planning Commission recommended a continuance of this application the Planning Commission meeting of May 27, 1997, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Alne, Jones, Lindstrom, Lowe, Meyer-Kennedy Kearns Gibbons None Chairperson Keams advised that this item will be continued to May 27,1997. Commissioner Alne asked if noticing can be accomplished. Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director, advised that the May 27th meeting does not allow sufficient time to notice but rather June 10th. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy advised that she will be on vacation. Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that noticing requirements depend upon where the Commission wants to go. It is not necessary to notice something that the Commission clearly will not support. The purpose of the notice is to define the project to be voted upon. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy reiterated her belief that the project should go to Council without recommendation. Planning Commission Minutes of May 13, 1997 Page 12 Commissioner Lindstrom advised that the purpose of the continuance is to allow the full Commission an opportunity to vote. Chairwoman Keams reopened the Public Hearing. REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR The written report of Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director, was accepted as presented with no additions. Commissioner Alne: · Brought up the appeal of the Commission's denial for 1180 Latimer Avenue. · Stated that staff did an admirable job working with the applicant in revising their project. · Perfect solutions to problems were achieved. · Stated that he finds it improper for SARC input to go directly to Council rather than to the Commission and then to Council. · Suggested that the Chair instruct Council that SARC recommendations should come fi.om the Planning Commission rather than directly to Council. · The Commission has never seen the layout that has been developed subsequent to its denial of this project. Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director, advised that Council had sought input on the Site and Architectural aspect of the application. The layout is identical but reversed. The houses are single-story rather than two-story. Commissioner Alne stated that the plan is much different from the plan reviewed by the Commission. Chairwoman Keams reminded the Commission that typically single-family residences are not reviewed by Council. This was an appeal. Commissioner Alne asked if the Commission wanted to instruct Council. Commissioner Jones stated that it was not necessary. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy stated that it is not necessary. Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director, advised that this is not a usual occurrence. This is the first time this has occurred in his eight year tenure with the City. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 9:17 p.m. to the Planning Commission meeting of May 27, 1997, in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California. Attachment #13 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 13, 1997 GP 96-02/PD 96-06/ TS 97-01/S 97-05 Neumeister, K. Continued Public hearing to consider the application of Mr. Ken Neumeister, on behalf of WTA Development and Huettig & Schromm, Inc., for approval of the following applications for property located at 535 Westchester Drive (formerly the Winchester Drive-In Site) in a PD (Planned Development) Zoning District and 571 MeGlineey Lane in an M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District: A. A General Plan Amendment (GP 96-02) to consider a change in the Land Use Element of the General Plan from Destination Commercial to Industrial. B. A Planned Development Permit (PD 96-06) to allow the construction of a 330,000 square foot research and development park. C. A Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (TS 97-01) to allow the creation of five lots. D. A Site and Architectural Approval (S 97-05) to allow the construction of two off-premise signs and landscaping at the McGlincey Lane entrance to the site. E. Certification of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR1996) for this Project. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission take the following actions based on the input provided at the meeting of April 30, 1997: Adopt a Resolution, incorporating the attached findings, recommending that the City Council APPROVE a General Plan Amendment (GP 96-02) for the project site from Destination Commercial to Industrial and Public/Semi-Public, incorporating a map amendment and text changes in the Development Policies as provided in Attachment "A"(note that this option incorporates an open space component); and Adopt a Resolution, incorporating the attached findings, recommending that the City Council APPROVE a Site and Architectural Approval (S 97-05), which affects the entrance driveway area, subject to the attached conditions; and o Adopt a Resolution, incorporating the attached findings, recommending that the City Council APPROVE a Planned Development Permit (PD 96-06) with an open space area of 3.5 - 4.0 acres; and Staff Report - Planning Commission Meeting of May 13, 1997 GP 96-02/PD 96-06/TS 97-01/S 97-05 -535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 2 Adopt a Resolution, incorporating the attached findings, recommending that the City Council APPROVE a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (TS 97-01) with the condition that an additional parcel be created to accommodate a 3.5 - 4.0 acre open space area and the other parcel sizes be reduced accordingly. BACKGROUND On April 30, 1997, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3088 recommending certification of the SEIR for this project. During the hearing the Commission expressed it's desire to see a 4-7 acre publicly accessible open space area incorporated into the project. Accordingly, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare the appropriate resolutions to reflect the Commission's comments. At the meeting, Staff did not think it was possible to conditionally approve the applications given the diversity of opinions and range of size of open space area and the unwillingness of the applicant to redesign the site plan to accommodate the open space. After reviewing the application further, staff believes it is possible to accommodate a park site of 3.5 - 4.0 acres on the south end of the site with minimal disruption of the applicant's plan. The following section describes how this can be done. Staff has prepared the attached Resolutions, providing an option for approval of the General Plan Amendment provided it incorporates a 3.5 - 4.0 acre open space component; approval of the Site and .Architectural Application for the off-premise signs and entrance driveway treatment and approval of the Planned Development Permit and Vesting Tentative Map provided they are adjusted to incorporate a 3.5 - 4.0 acre open space area. Staff feels that a 3.5 - 4.0 acre open space feature located adjacent to the groundwater recharge ponds can be incorporated into the development with minimal disruption. A larger open space area or open space located in other areas of the site would be more disruptive and probably could not be easily incorporated with significant redesign. The southern location provides minimal disruption of the applicant's plan and the opportunity to expand the open space approximately 1-3 acres by landscaping and providing trails around the pond area. With the amount of parking proposed it may be possible to accommodate some of the open space area by eliminating parking and allowing the developer to build a project approximating the size and layout of the original proposal. This alternative will meet the objectives of incorporating an open space feature and allowing the developer to pursue a reasonably comparable industrial development concept. The attached conditional approvals incorporate the stipulation that the Planned Development Permit is returned to the Planning Commission and City Council for final site and architectural approval prior to release of building permits. The vesting tentative map must come back to the City Council for final approval prior to recordation. Staff Report - Planning Commission Meeting of May 13, 1997 GP 96-02/PD 96-06/TS 97-01/S 97-05 -535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 3 The southern location also has the advantage of being detached fi.om the mobile home park and closer to the main entrance in terms of accessing the park from the Union Avenue neighborhood. It should be pointed out that even in this location a park will be within V2 mile of relatively few of the residents in the Union Avenue area. The southern location has the advantage that it can be designed to complement the industrial project by enhancing the entry and giving the development more of a heavily landscaped "campus" setting. The attached land use diagram accompanying the General Plan resolution illustrates a 3.5 - 4.0 acre open space area on the project site adjacent to the Santa Clara Valley Water District Groundwater Recharge Ponds. Staff will prepare denial resolutions for the applications should the Commission determine that the above described open space configuration does not meet your objectives. These resolutions will be distributed at the Planning Commission meeting. The Commission expressed diverse comments at the April 30, 1997, public hearing. Accordingly. Staff encourages the Commission to suggest alternative wording or conditions that may more accurately reflect your findings relating to these applications. Attachments 1. Draft Resolution for Approval of GP 96-02 2. Draft Resolution and conditions of approval for PD 96-06 3. Draft Resolution and conditions of approval for TS 97-01 4. Draft Resolution and Conditions of Approval for S 97-05 Submitted by: Tim J. Ha~, Ass~iate Planner Reviewed b ~ ~~~_~._~-,~ Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director Planning Commission Minutes of April 30, 1997 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING Chairwoman Keams read Agenda Item No. 1 into the record. GP 96-03/PD 96-06/ TS 97-01/S 97-05 Neumeister, K. Continued Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Ken Neumeister, on behalf of WTA Development & Huettig & Schromm, Inc., for approval of the following applications for property located at 535 Westchester Drive (formerly the Winchester Drive-In Site) in a PD (Planned Development) Zoning District and 571 McGlincey Lane in an M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District: A. A General Plan Amendment (GP 96-02) to consider a change in the Land Use Element of the General Plan from Destination Commercial to Industrial. B. A Planned Development Permit (PD 96-06) to allow the construction of a 330,000 square foot research and development park. C. A Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (TS 97-01) to allow the creation of five lots. D. A Site and Architectural Approval (S 97-05) to allow the construction of two off premise signs and landscaping at the~ McGlincey Lane entrance to the site. E. Find that this project is consistent with the project previously described in the Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. F. A Supplemental EIR was prepared for this project and was certified by City Council at its meeting of January 7, 1997. Chairwoman Keams: · Thanked those who spoke at the last meeting during the Public Hearing. · Commended the polite and cooperative way in which everyone addressed this subject. · Asked if anyone present wanted an opportunity to address this item. There being no additional parties present to address this project, Chairwoman Keams closed the Public Heating. Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director: · Provided highlights from his memo responding to questions raised at the April 22na meeting. · How can the Conditions o_f Approval protect residents _from the Planned Development Zoning? The response is that the business that has caused the concern from Mr. Stermer ' at the last meeting was established 13 years ago with Conditions that did not adequately address the use. For this project, specific conditions including hours of operation, location of loading docks and the land buffer between residential uses and this site will help ensure that the residential properties are not impacted by this industrial use. Planning Commission Minutes of April 30, 1997 Page 3 · ghat will prevent paint booths and associated odors? There will be no auto repair permitted on this site with no paint booths. · Parking ratio - why the difference between projected employees and number of parking spaces provided? The number of spaces exceed the number of projected employees to allow for guest parking and visitors to the site. Staff has been conservative in developing the parking ratio and required more spaces as a safety measure. · Can Open Space be incorporated into this project? It is possible to incorporate open space on the site but to do so impacts the proposed site layout. The mobile home park residents are concerned about the placement of an active park on this site. · If the site is split into five lots, how is reciprocalparla'ng ensured? Reciprocal parking will fall under the control of the CC&Rs being developed for the site. Mr. Peter Eakland, Traffic Engineer: · Addressed two concerns from the April 22nd meeting, the traffic impacts of this project and the impacts whether Cristich is improved or not. · Using a traffic model, it has been determined that two-thirds of the traffic for this site will come from Union Avenue and one-third from Curtner Avenue. · Staff believes that the traffic volumes from this project can be handled on existing roadways. Staff is requiring that a signal be installed at Union and McGlincey Lane so that traffic will not be impacted on Union Avenue and that delays on McGlincey can be' minimize. · All traffic concerns can be mitigated easily. Mitigation includes the traffic signal at Union and McGlincey, and improvements at the intersections of McGlincey/Access Road and Camden/Curtner. · The estimated increase in trips is 100 each a.m. and 100 each p.m. · This project represents only 27% of the traffic originally projected when the site was considered for large box retail. Commissioner Lowe asked whether the improvements on Cristich were merited if the increase in traffic is only 100 cars per day. Mr. Peter Eakland clarified that the total traffic generated by the project is 2,500 trips per day and that 100 trips represented those that represented travel during a peak hour either on Cristich or on McGlincey between Cristich and the project access road. The project was studied both with and without the Cristich Lane improvements and no additional mitigations would be created by "without Cristich" scenario. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy sought clarification that the traffic for this project is 73% less than in than the project considered in the early 1990's (large box retailer). Mr. Peter Eakland confirmed that fact. Planning Commission Minutes of April 30, 1997 Page 4 Commissioner Gibbons stated that from the SEIR the assumption is that Cristich will be improved. Are statistics or levels of service available in the event that Cristich is not available? Mr. Peter Eakland replied that the analysis has been done but was done after the completion of the EIR. The only difference in traffic levels will be at the McGlincey Lane entrance to the project site. Commissioner Gibbons stated that the documents assume that Cristich will be improved. However, there is no talk of cueing distances. Mr. Peter Eakland stating that queuing was reviewed and statistics are presented on the level of service sheets in the appendix but are not spelled out individually in the traffic study. No queuing problems are anticipated; only the problem areas were identified. Commissioner Gibbons asked what impact an additional 200 cars would have on peak traffic times in this area. Mr. Peter Eakland replied that the critical movement is left tums onto McGlincey in the p.m. peak hour, and the impact is projected at a 16-second delay per car at peak hours. Commissioner Gibbons commented on the possibility of restricting on-street parking along McGlincey and wondered where the vehicles would go that currently park along the street. Additionally, she mentioned the large amount of truck traffic on this street. Mr. Peter Eakland agreed that there is significant truck traffic on McGlincey but that it is not excessive. He added that the on-street parking was not proposed to be eliminated. He stated that on McGlincey a left turn lane and a short acceleration lane would be added. Commissioner Gibbons asked about the difference between the parking count and the projected occupant load. Mr. Peter Eakland advised that the estimates for employees and parking spaces were derived from different sources. Parking space requirements for this project are based on the City's Parking Standards. They cover a wide range of uses and reflect the need for parking not only by employees but by visitors as well as a realistic vacancy factor. It is a good idea to be conservative so as not to create parking impacts in the neighborhood. Commissioner Gibbons stated that some of the improvements recommended in the EIR have been installed. Planning Commission Minutes of April 30, 1997 Page 5 Mr. Peter Eakland replied that some of the improvements are partially in place, namely at the intersection of San Tomas Expressway and Highway 17 southbound; however, a new eastbound thru lane is still pending. Commissioner Gibbons asked if any other improvements have been implemented. Are any projected for Campbell at Union Avenues? Mr. Peter Eakland answered that a southbound approach serving Pruneyard traffic was constructed at the intersection of Campbell and Union after the EIR process began. Commissioner Gibbons asked if any attempt will be made to remove parking on McGlincey Lane? Mr. Peter Eakland answered that he strongly recommends that on-street parking not be removed on McGlincey. To do so would have a heavy impact on existing businesses in the area. Commissioner Gibbons asked if there are any contingencies in place in the event that the traffic increases to more than 300 cars per hour? Mr. Peter Eakland replied that forecast traffic does not push the limits of any intersection. He is comfortable that a modest unforeseen increase would not change the extent of recommended mitigation measures. Commissioner Gibbons stated that the original EIR was prepared prior to the opening of Highway 85. Have numbers be redone? Mr. Peter Eakland replied that new traffic data were collected but that some of the projected traffic reductions on local streets have not been realized. Currently, there is no incentive to go onto Highway 85 due to the placement of ramp meters at on-ramps and between Highways 85 and 17. Traffic in the area was helped a bit by the widening of San Tomas Expressway at Camden Avenue. The fact that there is no full interchange for Highway 85 at Winchester hampers traffic flow. If the possibility of a full interchange could be revisited it would be worthwhile. Ms. Valerie Young, CH2M Hill: · Advised that she worked on both the EIR and SEIR for this project as the Project Manager. Stated that she is a Senior Planner with 18 years of experience, 10 years in the public sector. The last public sector position was from 1986 to 1989 for the City of Saratoga. · She joined CH2M Hill in 1989 and has worked on more than 50 projects. CH2M Hill is a environmental engineering and planning firm. She has managed the San Jose Office since the mid-1980's. Planning Commission Minutes of April 30, 1997 Page 6 · Explained the CEQA background and purpose which includes a role in informing decision makers and the public about how to avoid and reduce impacts. The report is to be objective and informative and the public agency must review the report prior to a project. Public policy and financial implications must be studied. It must be determined that the requirements of CEQA were taken into consideration while preparing the EIR. · McGlincey Lane was added to the Redevelopment Zone in 1991/92. At the time the site was being considered for a destination retail use and the EIR was prepared at a project level. However the box retail was never developed. · The EIR evaluates everything from traffic, air quality to noise. · If unmitigated impacts exist, a Statement of Overriding Considerations is prepared. · When it was determined that a Research and Development project would be considered for this site, new analysis was required. However, much of the EIR was still found to be valid. It was determined that an SEIR was appropriate. CEQA allows an SEIR when limited changes are needed to make an EIR current. · The EIR/SEIR was certified by Council on January 7, 1997. This confirms that the project as proposed is similar to the project evaluated under the original EIR. Chairwoman Kearns asked if there were any motions. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy suggested a discussion regarding each Commissioner's viewpoint to this point. Chairwoman Keams advised that Commissioner Alne has a prepared statement. Attachment A is the text of Commissioner Alne's statement which runs four pages. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy: · Stated that she is in favor of the project. While some things can be worked on, basically it is a good plan. More open space is needed. Stated that she will support the project and feels that the project is ready for Council's review. Commissioner Lindstrom: · Stated that there have been many public hearings. · Said that the project is the way to go. · Agrees that open space is needed. · Said that overall, this project is worthy to go forward to Council. Planning Commission Minutes of April 30, 1997 Page 7 Commissioner Gibbons: · Stated that she has no problem supporting the project use. · Stated that she is in favor of approving the EIR document. However, she has comments about the subsequent proposals. · Advised that she is uncomfortable with the traffic information provided but this does not preclude her from accepting the EIR information. Commissioner Lowe suggested that each aspect be voted upon separately. Chairwoman Keams agreed that this was the way to handle this project. Commissioner Lowe: · Expressed his disappointment with all parties to the project - the developer, the open space proponents and the mobile home park people. · No compromise has been offered by any of the parties involved. · It would be possible to have multiple uses of the site with underground parking. · Stated that he could not approve this project as it stands. Commissioner Jones: · Stated that he is in favor of the plan despite concerns that every plot of land is being crammed with as much building as possible. · Said that he has concerns about traffic impacts to the area. · Stated that this area is not the right area for a park. · Hopes to see less development of the site and more green. · Said that he supports industrial use but questions the projected 750 jobs and 1,200 parking spaces. Less is better for the community. Commissioner Lindstrom stated that it appears the project has support from four commissioners but each has concerns. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy stated that she is comfortable with the zoning but not the specific project. Commissioner Gibbons stated that she finds the project has lots of pavement. Chairwoman Keams: · Stated that she is in favor of more open space on this site, from three to four acres. · Said that she is not comfortable with recommending the project as it stands now. · Advised that she is comfortable with the certification of the SEIR and can vote approve it. · Asked that the developer be encouraged to go back to the drawing board to implement more open space into the project. Planning Commission Minutes of April 30, 1997 Page 8 Mr. Ken Neumeister, Project Applicant, WTA: · Advised that he has worked with the City on this development for one year. Their proposed project is based upon the recommendations of Council and staff. · Their project includes a number of amenities that are not typically included in R&D projects, including more landscaping areas. Chairwoman Kearns asked if the applicant was interested in redesigning their site? Mr. Ken Neumeister replied that they were not. Advised that a lot of money has been spent in developing this project proposal. Motion: Commissioner Alne made the motion to return this project to staff to address all Planning Commission concerns and to resubmit the project when ready to do so. City Attorney Seligmann advised Chairwoman Keams that she must state that this motion has died for lack of a second. Chairwoman Keams stated that the motion has died for lack of a second. Commissioner Alne: · Brought to the Commission's attention all of the items included in Attachment No. 1 from the findings to Exhibit A (27 pages long). · The Winchester Drive-In site is the definition of a community park. · Expressed dissatisfaction with environmental reports, stating that CEQA has not been satisfied. Challenged that the SEIR does not represent an independent evaluation. Stated that to certify the environmental reports represents a disservice to the City. · Stated that this Commission is the last "bastion of review". · Asked the Commission to reconsider voting on this motion. Motion: Commissioner Lindstrom, seconded by Commissioner Meyer- Kennedy, made a motion to adopt Resolution 3088 recommending that Council accept and certify the SEIR, including acceptance of the Statement of Overriding Considerations, for the former Winchester Drive-In Site located at 535 Westchester and 571 McGlincey Lane, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Gibbons, Jones, Kearns, Lindstrom, Meyer-Kennedy NOES: Alne, Lowe ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy stated that it is apparent that the developer does not want to consider adding additional open space to this project. Planning Commission Minutes of April 30, 1997 Page 9 Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director, advised that if the Commission wishes to require additional open space, their option is to recommend denial of the project. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy asked if they send comments to Council as to why they are denying the project? Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that they should articulate what they want and staff will use this information to develop findings and resolutions for adoption at the next meeting. So as not to delay the scheduling in place, this item can be pre-advertised for the May 20th Council meeting. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy asked about the process. Do they recommend denial, send this back to staff, have the project come back to the Planning Commission and from there to Council? Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that findings must be developed that state that an all-industrial use of this site is not acceptable and that open space is desired. These findings will be developed into resolutions for denial for adoption by the Commission at its meeting of May 13th. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy asked if some items could go forward? Mr. Steve Piasecki replied that this was not feasible until a site plan is approved. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy stated that it was advisable to continue recommending findings for denial. Commissioner Gibbons stated that the finding can be made that the site is not suitable for the density of the proposed development. Asked that the discussion continue regarding the individual elements of this project. Commissioner Lindstrom stated that a different design is desired for the site. Mr. Steve Piasecki stated that the finding could be made that the General Plan Amendment from Commercial to Industrial Use is not well founded and that open space uses should be included on the site. The same statement can be made for the Planned Development Permit denial, that an all-industrial use is unacceptable with insufficient open space. Added that he will need comments and problems with each aspect of the project for use in developing the findings for denial. Chairwoman Kearns asked for individual comments as to why the Commission is not in favor of the General Plan Amendment to change from Commercial to Industrial. Planning Commission Minutes of April 30, 1997 Page 10 Commissioner Lowe stated that a multi-functional use of the property is more desirable, including housing. Additionally, one-third of the site should be used as open space. Commissioner Gibbons stated that a requirement for open space is wan'anted. Mr. Steve Piasecki stated that if the intent was for more landscaping on this project, this would be a simple adjustment. However, if the Commission is seeking a four acre park, the Commission cannot approve the project because such a park is not in the proposal. Commissioner Gibbons suggested developing an RFP for the entire project creating more flexibility for the development of open space. Commissioner Gibbons asked how much flexibility is available. Who says what portion of the site can be used for what uses? Mr. Steve Piasecki stated that there is not much flexibility. Commissioner Gibbons stated that she could not support the discrepancy between the parking being provided versus the calculation of the number of employees for the site. Higher parking uses could increase traffic densities. On the other hand, an over-commitment to parking could create a white elephant. She is uncomfortable with both possibilities. Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that this concern could be addressed by adding a Condition to the Planned Development Permit that limits the number of employees to no more than 1,000. Commissioner Gibbons asked whether the developer could be required to resolve future traffic impacts. Mr. Steve Piasecki said this is possible. Commissioner Gibbons asked about easement rights to use open space on the site. Stated that having recreational space for employees is an advantage to the developer. There is a reasonable opportunity for the developer to use open space and access that open space to the public. However, issues about who pays for improvements and maintenance must be addressed. Commissioner Alne asked why the Commissioners feel this conversation is necessary since they have already said this project is "dandy" by approving the SEIR. Commissioner Gibbons stated that they have accepted the SEIR for this project but that does not mean that they approve of the project itself as submitted. Mr. Steve Piasecki added that the SEIR adequately addresses this project. Planning Commission Minutes of April 30, 1997 Page 11 Commissioner Alne stated that he cannot approve anything that is not in concert with the General Plan. Asked why this project appeared to be treated in a quick manner. Is it a result of the Permit Streamlining Act? City Attorney William Seligmann stated that the Permit Streamlining Act does not pertain to General Plan Amendments. Stated that it is within the Planning Commission's and City Council's purview to recommend approval of projects conditioned upon a General Plan Amendment as long as there is consistency at the time of approval. Commissioner Alne reminded that this Commission is taking a legal action. Commissioner Gibbons stated that certifying the SEIR does not require a change in the General Plan at this time. City Attorney William Seligrnann concurred. Commissioner Lowe suggested that comments on the other aspects of this project be made. Mr. Steve Piasecki asked the Commission what they want to see on this site. Are they looking for a four acre public access park? What would gain the Commission's support? Commissioner Lindstrom replied private open space enhancements. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy agreed that enhancements in the project provided by the developer would be nice. Commissioner Gibbons reminded that the zoning could not be industrial if public access is desired. Commissioner Lowe stated that he was not happy with the project. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy stated that she wants open space available to the public. Commissioner Lowe stated that a minimum of one-third of the parcel, or seven (7) acres, should be open space. Commissioner Alne stated that the entire site should be open space. Commissioner Gibbons stated that one-third of the site is too much. (27%) of the site is already proposed as landscaping. Commissioner Lowe underground parking. Twenty-seven percent suggested the industrial site appear like a college campus with Planning Commission Minutes of April 30, 1997 Page 12 Commissioner Gibbons suggested less hardscape and more open space. Commissioner Gibbons stated that of the overall site a minimum of one-third be publicly accessible for the occupants, developer and the public. Suggested that the developer work with staff and the community. Mr. Steve Piasecki sought clarification. Twenty-seven (27%) or thirty-three percent (33%) of the site landscaped? Commissioner Gibbons suggested forty percent (40%). Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy wondered whether the open space should be maintained by the City. Commissioner Gibbons replied no. Chairwoman Kearns suggested three (3) to four (4) acres of open space and suggested that forty percent (40%) is too much. Commissioner Gibbons reminded that the forty percent (40%) includes landscaping, hardscaping, etc. This is just thirteen percent (13%) more than originally proposed by the developers. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy said she could go along with that. Commissioner Jones stated that he agreed with Commissioner Lowe that seven acres be developed as open space. Continued by saying that it is difficult to plan out the uses of a 24 acre site "on the fly." Opined that there is too much blacktop for this the last large property in Campbell. Enough room for a baseball/softball field should be incorporated. This feature may actually draw tenants to the project. Recommended that the facilities be accessible to the public evenings and weekends. Commissioner Lowe stated that once the land is gone, it is gone forever. Commissioner Alne stated that after an honest assessment of all options open, done in a professional way with proper analysis, then he could even support one hundred percent (100%) heavy industrial uses. Reminded that the land has been open space while it has been unused the last fifteen (15) years. Commissioner Lindstrom stated that the Commission is not getting anywhere. Suggested a motion to approve the General Plan Amendment to change the Zoning from Commercial to Industrial uses. Commissioner Lowe stated that this is a disservice. Planning Commission Minutes of April 30, 1997 Page 13 Commissioner Lindstrom asked whether staff has enough information? Mr. Steve Piasecki summarized that the Commission is seeking from a three (3) to four (4) acre park to a seven (7) acre park. There is support for industrial use with more landscaping and publicly accessible open space. The common thread is open space from four (4) to seven (7) acres. Commissioner Jones suggested the elimination of Buildings D and E. Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that the Commissioners do not have to design the site. He added that the Planned Development is not consistent with the open space requirements. Advised that staff now has enough information to prepare findings for denial of all four applications. Commissioner Gibbons asked how to address public access. Mr. Steve Piasecki said the Commission should notify Council that it wants a four (4) to seven (7) acres of open space. Council will draw its own conclusions. The Commission is saying that the project doesn't work as proposed. Commissioner Lowe asked about incorporating housing into the site. Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that this possibility was looked into in 1992. Commissioner Gibbons stated that the parking density versus occupant load is too large. This discrepancy has the potential to impact traffic. The use has merit with refinement. Commissioner Gibbons asked about the Cristich improvements. Commissioner Lowe suggested taking the $1.5 million and putting it into a park. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy asked if the possibility of higher buildings had been considered. Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that the developer prefers single-story buildings as they are easier to lease out. Chairwoman Kearns stated that Cristich should be improved to a public street as it is currently a very narrow street. Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that this is not required but it is the intent of the Redevelopment Agency to improve Cristich to a public street. Commissioner Alne stated that the applicant has the right to withdraw if Cristich is not improved. Planning Commission Minutes of April 30, 1997 Page 14 Mr. Kirk Heinrichs, Redevelopment Agency Manager, advised that this is not a condition of the DDA. Commissioner Alne questioned the budgeted costs for Cristich Lane upgrades and stated his belief that it could be twice as costly as evidenced by the City's recent need to increase funds for the Highway 17/Hamilton Avenue improvements. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy, seconded by Commissioner Lindstrom, the Commission unanimously voted to continue this item to the Planning Commission meeting of May 13, 1997, to allow staff time to develop findings for denial of this application. (7-0) City Attorney Seligrnann reminded Chairwoman Keams that the Public Hearing should be reopened. Chairwoman Keams reopened the Public Hearing. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m. to the Planning Commission- meeting of May 13, 1997, in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California. SUBMITTED BY: ~/~~ Corinne A. Shinn, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: ATTEST: CITY OF CAMPBELL Community Development Department April 29, 1997 Council Member John Diquisto City of San Jose 70 N. First Street San Jose, CA 95110-1797 RE: Response To Letter Regarding Winchester Drive-In Project Dear Council Member Diquisto, Thank you for your letter expressing concerns about development of a business park proposed for the former Winchester Drive-In Theater site. Background The site has remained vacant since the Winchester Drive-In closed approximately 15 years ago. Over the years, there have been several attempts to develop the property. These development efforts failed due primarily to the development difficulties of the area including poor access and inadequate infrastructure (water and sewer facilities). Also, the site became a target for vandals. At one point, the site was declared a public nuisance and the City had to clean up extensive debris and secure the fence around the property. In April, 1994, the Campbell Redevelopment Agency acquired the property, in foreclosure, from the Federal Resolution Trust Corporation with the intent of addressing the development difficulties of the site and facilitating the disposition and development of the property. For the past three years, the Agency conducted an extensive land use and economic analysis including numerous public hearings and meetings involving the community, general public and special interest groups. Our mailing list for public meeting notices exceeds 450, including some San Jose residents. The land use alternative process culminated in January 1997, when the Redevelopment Agency Board entered into a Disposition and Development Agreement with WTA Campbell Technology Park to purchase and develop the site. 70 North First Street · Campbell, California 95OO8.1423 · TEL 408.866.2140 . FaX 408.866.8381 TDD 408.866.2790 Response To Letter Regarding Winchester Drive-In Project April 29, 1997 Page 2 Traffic Study As a part of this project, an EIR was prepared in compliance with CEQA, including an extensive traffic study. This EIR was distributed to the San Jose Planning Department, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Congestion Management Program (CMP) and various public agencies as required by CEQA. The traffic study was completed in compliance with the models and methods prescribed by the CMP and with input from the Planning Departments of the City of San Jose and Santa Clara County. On November 5, 1996, the City received a response from the City of San Jose Planning Department to the Supplemental EIR and traffic study prepared for this project. The letter indicated the City had 'no comment" on the project. A copy of that letter is attached. Your letter states that the project "could attract as many as 3,500 vehicles to the streets of San Jose." This is incorrect. The traffic study estimates a maximum of 2,538 total daily trips will be generated by the project of which less than a third may impact San Jose streets. The two San Jose intersections that would be most affected are Union/Bascom and Camden/Bascom in which there will be less than 140 peak hour trips associated with this project. None of the project traffic will cause an intersection to be at a lower level of service. As stated in the Supplemental EIR, the traffic generated by this project can be mitigated and the existing street network can handle the capacity. The cities of Campbell and San Jose have been committed to working together on maintaining existing levels of service at intersections affected by traffic generated by developments in each other's jurisdictions, and that cooperation has been maintained with review of this project. Campbell will continue to work with adjacent jurisdictions and if I can be of any further service to you, please don't hesitate to contact me. ~~,.~,..,.~,Sincer ly, Community Development Director enclosure CC: Campbell Planning Commission Jim Beall, County Supervisor Jim Derryberry, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement CITY OF CAMPBELL Community Development Department · Current Planning Date: To: From: Re: April 28, 1997 Members of the Planning Commission Tim J. Haley, Associate Planner'~ Disposition & Development Agreement (DDA) Previously, Commissioner Alne requested a copy of the DDA for the Winchester Drive- In Site and earlier today Commissioner Gibbons also requested a copy. Copies are being distributed to each Commissioner. Please find enclosed a copy of the DDA and an agenda for Wednesday's meeting. Additionally, Commissioner Gibbons asked for any improvement for Cristich Lane. A preliminary analysis has been done for the Cristich Lane Street Improvement Project; however, no plans have been prepared at this time. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (408) 866-2140. 70 North First Street . Campbell, California 95008.1423 - TEL 408.866.2140 . F^X 408.866.8381 TDD 408.866.2790 DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT by and between THE CITY OF CAMPBELL ~%'DEVELOPMENT AGENCY an,~ WTA CAMPBELL TECHNOLOGY PARK LLC DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THIS DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (this "Agreement") is made as of January 7, 1997, by and between the City of Campbell Redevelopment Agency, a public body corporate and politic (the "Agency"), and WTA Campbell Technology Park LLC, a California limited liability company (the "Developer"), with reference to the following facts: A. The Agency is responsible for implementation of the Second Amended and Restated Central Campbell Redevelopment Plan adopted by the City Council of the City of Campbell (the 'City') by Ordinance No. 1461 dated June 21, 1983, as amended and restated by Ordinance No. 1830 dated January 15, 1991, as further amended and restated by Ordinance No. 1860 dated June 16, 1992, and as further amended by Ordinance No. 1912 dated December 6, 1994 (as amended, the "Redevelopment Plan"). The Redevelopment Plan affects and controls the development and use of all real property located within an area within Campbell, California, more particularly described and set forth in the Redevelopment Plan (the "Project Area"). B. The Agency owns the 23.58-acre parcel of real property in the Project Area described in the attached Exhibit A (the "Property"). The Agency owns in fee the portion of the Property described in Exhibit A as Parcels One, Three, Five, and Seven of Tract A and as Parcel Four of Tract B. The Agency owns easements in the remainder of the Property, consisting of the portions described in Exhibit A as Parcels Two, Four, and Six of Tract A. C. The Agency has determined that the Property should be developed with a high-end research and development and light industrial business park and ancillary parking improvements (the "Improvements" and together with the Property the "Development"), subject to appropriate modifications of the City's C~neral Plan and related land use codes. D. The Development is consistent with the Redevelopment Plan as modified by any general plan amendment, and will promote the goals and objectives of the Redevelopment Plan to revitalize the Project Area. E. To accomplish development of the DeVelopment, pursuant to this Agreement the Agency will convey its fee and easement interests in the Property to the Developer; the Developer will pay to the Agency a purchase price of Eight Million Dollars 2 ($8,000,000); the Developer will construct the Improvements; the Agency will consider formation of (and will cooperate in applying to the City for formation of) a special district for purposes of financing the construction of public improvements; and the Agency will reimburse to the Developer up to Five Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($550,000) in certain public improvement costs. F. The Agency and the Developer (the "Parties') expect McGlincey Lane to provide primary access, to the Development. If any condition of the land use approvals of the Development requires that Cristich Lane be improved for additional access to the Development (a "Cristich Lane Condition of Approval"), then this Agreement imposes no duty on the Developer to purchase the Property unless the Agency has first committed to satisfying the Cristich Lane Condition of Approval to the extent necessary to enable the Developer to obtain building permits and certificates of occupancy for the Improvements. G. The Parties expect the conditions of the land use approvals of the Development to include development.of certain on-site and off-site improvements, as more fully described in this Agreement. If any condition of the land use approvals of the Development both (1) is unanticipated and (2) materially adversely delays construction of the Development or increases the cost of constructing the Development, then this Agreement provides for the Parties to meet in good faith to discuss the possibility of the Agency sharing the costs of such unanticipated conditions of approval, and if the Agency does not agree to share the costs of such unanticipated conditions of approval, then the Developer will have no duty to purchase the Property. H. This Agreement permits the Developer to construct the Improvements in phases. This Agreement also permits the Developer to subdivide the Property. If the Developer subdivides the Property into separate legal parcels ("Post-Map Parcels") and completes its construction obligations under this Agreement with respect to a particular Post-Map Parcel, then this Agreement provides for the Agency to confirm the Developer's completion of its obligations with respect to the Post-Map Parcel through a certificate (an "Estoppel Certificate of Completion.), after which certain provisions of this Agreement shall cease to apply to the Post-Map Parcel. Similarly, if the Developer does not subdivide the Property, and the Developer completes its construction obligations under this Agreement with respect to the entire Property, then this Agreement provides for the Agency to confirm the Developer's completion of its obligations through an Estoppel Certificate of Completion, after which certain provisions of this Agreement shall cease to apply to the Property. I. The Developer has represented that it has the necessary experience, skill, and ability to carry out the commitments contained in this Agreement. The Parties anticipate that the Developer will obtain funds from third party sources to finance a substantial portion of development of the Development. J. The Agency is authorized to sell the Property to the Developer, as provided in this Agreement~ by Health and Safety Code Section 33430. The Agency is authorized to pay for part of the cost of certain public improvements, as provided in this Agreement, by Health and Safety Code Sections 33445 and 33421. K. The City Council of the City has made the findings required by Health and Safety Code Sections 33433 (in connection with the Developer's consideration under this Agreement) and 33445 (in connection with the Agency paying for part of the cost of certain public improvements under this Agreement). In addition, the City Council of the City has consented to this Agreement as required by Health and Safety Code Section 33421.1 (in connection with the Agency paying for part of the cost of certain public improvements under this Agreement). L. Prior to governing body authorization of execution of this Agreement, the Agency, as lead agency, and the City, as responsible agency, certified an environmental impact report for the Development and this Agreement (the "EIR"). The EIR has served as the document for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") in the consideration and approval of the execution and implementation of this Agreement. WITH REFERENCE TO THE FACTS RECITED ABOVE, the Parties agree as follows: ARTICLE 1. DEFINITIONS, EXHIBITS, AND INTENT Section 1.1 Definitions. In addition to the terms defined elsewhere in this Agreement, the following definitions shall apply: (a) "Agency" means the City of Campbell Redevelopment Agency, a public body corporate and politic, organized and existing pursuant to the California Community Redevelopment Law. (b) "Agency Assistance" has the meaning given in Section 3.2. 4 (c) "Agency Event of Default" has the meaning given in Section 9.3. (d) "Agreement" means this Disposition and Development Agreement. (e) "Anticipated Conditions of Approval" means those conditions of the Planning Approvals that are either (1) set forth on the attached Exhibit F (listing off-site improvements expected to be required as conditions of'the Planning Approvals), or (2) otherwise customarily required by the City for developments of the scope and nature of the Development, or (3) conditions regarding maintenance obligations for public street parkstrips and similar amenities beyond those customarily required by the City for public street improvements but proposed by the Developer as off-site improvements associated with the Development. However, the storm drain improvements listed as item 5 on Exhibit F are Anticipated Conditions of Approval only to the extent that the stow,, drain improvements are required, as a condition of the Planning Approvals, to conform substantially to the specifications described in the attached Exhibit G or to specifications that are less costly to build than those described in the attached Exhibit G. (f) "Anticipated Storm Drain Improvements" means the storm drain improvements listed as item 5 on Exhibit F, but only to the extent that the storm drain improvements are required, as a condition of the Planning Approvals, to conform substantially to the specifications described in the attached Exhibit G or to specifications that are less costly to build than those described in the attached Exhibit G. (g) "Approved Development .Loan" means a loan to the Developer that .has been approved by the Agency in writing. The Agency shall not withhold approval from any loan that is made pursuant to documents that both (1) require all loan proceeds to be used exclusively in connection with the Development (including for payment of any customary hard or soft costs, including developer fees, actually incurred in connection with acquisition of the Property and development of the Development in accordance with this Agreement, regardless of when the cost was incurred), and (2) are consistent with this Agreement. An Approved Development Loan may be secured by and made with respect to either the entire Property or any Post-Map Parcel or Parcels. (h) "CEQA" means the California Environmental Quality Act. (i) "CFD-Developed Improvements" means the improvements, if any, developed with Community Facilities District financing assistance, as more particularly described in Section 3.3. 5 (j) "City" means the City of Campbell, California, a municipal corporation. (k) "Closing" means the close of escrow through which the Agency will convey its fee and easement interests in the Property to the Developer. (1) "Community Facilities District" means the community facilities district more particularly described in Section 3.3. (m) "Cristich Lane Condition of Approval" means any condition of the Planning Approvals that requires Cristich Lane to be improved. (n) "Deposit" means the good faith deposit provided by the Developer in the foxm of cash (or an irrevocable letter of credit in form and substance and by an issuer reasonably acceptable to the Agency) in the amount of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000). If the Deposit is in the form of cash, then the Deposit shall also include all interest that is earned on the Deposit after the Agency deposits the Deposit in an interest- bearing account approved by the Developer in an institution approved by the Developer. (o) "Developer" means WTA Campbell Technology Park LLC, a California limited liability company, and any successor or assignee to its rights under this Agreement to the extent permitted by this Agreement. (p) "Developer Event of Default" has the meaning given in Section 9.4. (q) "Development" means the Property and the Improvements. (r) "EIR" has the meaning given in Recital L. (s) "Escrow Holder" means the San Jose, California, office of Valley Title Company, or such other title company or qualified escrow holder upon which the Parties may subsequently agree, with which one or more escrows shall be established by the Parties to accomplish the acquisition and disposition of the Property as provided in this Agreement. (t) "Estoppel Certificate of Completion" means a certificate of the Agency to confirm the Developer's completion of specified obligations under this Agreement, as further defined in Section 5.7. (u) "Final Construction Plans" has the meaning given in Section 5.3. (v) "Force Majeure" has the meaning given in Section 10.18. (w) "Grant Deed" means the grant deed by which the Agency conveys its fee and easement interests in the Property to the Developer. A form of the Grant Deed is attached to this Agreement as Exhibit D. (x) 5.11. "Hazardous Materials" has the meaning given in Section (y) "Improvements" means the improvements to be built on the Property pursuant to this Agreement, with approximately three hundred thirty thousand (330,000) square feet of floor space to be used as a high-end research and development and light industrial business park, and ancillary landscaping, parking, and other improvements. A site plan for the Improvements is attached to this Agreement as Exhibit E. (z) 5.10 (a) . "Indemnified Parties" has the meaning given in Section (aa) "Parties" means the Agency and the Developer, and their permitted successors and assigns under this Agreement. (ab) "Permitted Exceptions" means the exceptions to title to the Property listed in Schedule B of the preliminary title report attached to this Agreement as Exhibit B, except the items listed in such Schedule B as numbers 3, 4, 5, 18, 24, and 28, and exclusive of exception 29 if the Developer obtains an ALTA survey. (ac) "Planning Approvals" means all discretionary City approvals required in connection with the Development, including (without limitation) an amendment to the City's ~eneral Plan, a Planning Commission determination that the disposition under this Agreement conforms to the City's C~neral Plan pursuant to Government Code Section 65402, approval of a tentative map under the Subdivision Map Act (which maybe a vesting tentative map, if the Developer seeks approval of a vesting tentative map), approval of a planned development permit, an amendment to the City's zoning ordinance, if required, and/or approval of the Development's architectural design and site layout. The Planning Approvals do not include any ministerial approvals, such as building and engineering pe~mits or a final subdivision map. (ad) "Post-Map Parcel" means a legal parcel consisting of a portion of the Property following recordation of a final 7 subdivision map to subdivide the portions of the Property currently owned in fee by the Agency. (as) "Post-Map Parce% Improvements" means the Improvements to be develo~edon a partxcular Post-Map P~rcel. For purposes of ~ssuance of an Estoppel Certificate of Completion with respect to a particular Post-Map Parcel, the term "Post-Map Parcel Improvements" shall also mean suc~ other improvements not located on such Post-Map Parcel as maybe associated with the Improvements to be developed on such..Post-M~P Parcel as conditions of approval, as indicated on Exhxbit H (which is to be attached to this Agreement pursuant to Section 5.7(b)). (af) "Project Area" means the Central Campbell Redevelopment Project Area, as more particularly described in the Redevelopment Plan. (ag) .Property" means the 23.58 acre parcel of real property Agency owns in fee the portion of the Property oescr~Deo ~n Exhibit A as Parcels One, Three, Five, and Seven of Tract A and as Parcel Four of Tract B. The Agency owns easements in the remainder of the Property, consisting of the portzons described in Exhibit A as Parcels Two, Four, and Six of Tract A. (ah) .Redevelopment Plan" means the Second Amended and Restated Central Campbell Redevelopment Plan adopted by the City Council of the City by Ordinance No. 1461 dated June 21, 1983, as amended and restated by Ordinance No. 1830 dated January 15, 1991, as further amended and restated by Ordinance No. 1860 dated June 16, 1992, and as further amended by Ordinance No. 1912 dated December 6, 1994, as may be further amended from ~ime to time. (ai) "Security Financing Interest" means the security interest created by any mortgage, deed of trust, or similar financing encumbrance on the Property to secure an Approved Development Loan. (aj) "Transfer" has the meaning given in Section 7.1. (ak) ,Unanticipated Conditions of Approval" means those conditions of the Planning Approvals that are not Anticipated Conditions of Approval. Section 1.2 ~. The following exhibits are attached to and incorporated into this Agreement: Exhibit A Legal Description of the Property 8 Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit G Exhibit H Permitted Exceptions Environmental Studies Form of Grant Deed Site Plan Off-Site Improvements Plans For Storm Drain Improvements Conditions of Approval for Specific Post-Map Parcels [to be added pursuant to Section 5.?(b)] ARTICLE 2. PRE-DISPOSITION REQUIREMENTS Section 2.1 Conditions Precedent. As conditions precedent to the Closing, the conditions set forth in this Article 2 must first be met by the times specified for such conditions. Section 2.2 Deposit. (a) Prior to or concurrently with (and as a condition of) the Agency's execution of this Agreement, the Developer has delivered to the Agency the Deposit. If the Deposit is in the form of cash, then the Agency shall promptly deposit the Deposit in an interest-bearing account approved by the Developer in an institution approved bythe Developer. (b) Upon a Developer Event of Default prior to the Closing, if the Agency does not elect to terminate this Agreement, then the Agency may deduct from the Deposit and retain funds to the extent of the Agency's damages by reason of the Developer Event of Default, and the Developer shall promptly restore the Deposit to its pre-deduction level. However, if the Developer disputes the extent of the Agency's damages by reason of the Developer Event of Default, then the Developer's failure to restore the Deposit to its pre-deduction level shall not be an independent basis for a Developer Event of Default so long as the Developer promptly notifies the Agency of the Developer's reason for disputing the extent of the Agency's damages by reason of the Developer Event of Default, and requests submitting resolution of the dispute to arbitration. (1) Within ten (10) days after the Developer's notice, each Party shall appoint a disinterested arbitrator. The two appointed arbitrators shall promptly meet a~d attempt to settle ~he ma~er (by.determining ~he extent of ~he Agency's damages by reason of the Developer Event of Default). If the two arbitrators cannot agree to a settlement of the matter within fifteen (15) days after their appointment, then the two arbitrators shall jointly select a third disinterested arbitrator, and the three appointed arbitrators shall promptly meet and attempt to settle the matter. The three arbitrators shall agree to a settlement of the matter within thirty (30) days after the appointment of the third arbitrator. (2) The decision of all or a majority of the arbitrators, as applicable, when rendered in writing, signed by the arbitrators, and delivered to the Parties, shall settle the matter and shall be binding on the Parties, unless both Parties agree otherwise. The decision shall specify with particularity and in detail the basis for the decision, and shall include such instructions to the Parties as may be required for the effective implementation of the decision. If the arbitrators request evidence from the Parties, or a hearing to present such evidence, then the Parties shall in good faith attempt ~o provide such evidence and/or participate in such a hearing. Formal rules of evidence that would apply in a judicial proceeding shall not apply to the presentation of evidence to the arbitrators. The arbitrators shall have no power to modify any of the provisions of this Agreement. The cost of the arbitration shall be borne entirely: (A) by the Developer if the arbitrators shall determine that any damages are due to Agency~ or (B) by the Party who did not prevail in any arbitration conducted pursuant to any other provision of thisAgreement. If any award of the arbitrators shall require the Developer to restore the Deposit to its pre-deduction level, and Developer fails to do so within ten (10) days following the award of the arbitrators, the same shall constitute an independent basis for a Developer Event of Default, which shall permit Agency solely the remedies provided in Section 9.4 of this Agreement. (3) The arbitration provision in this Section 2.2(b) shall not apply if the Agency elects to terminate this Agreement following a Developer Event of Default. 10 (c) Except as provided in Section 2.2(d), upon termination of this Agreement by the Agency, the Agency shall have its rights and remedies as provided in Section 9.4. (d) Upon termination of this Agreement prior to the Closing under any of the following circumstances, the Agency shall return the Deposit to the Developer: (1) If this Agreement is terminated pursuant to Section 2.3(e) as a result of the Developer's inability, after diligent good faith efforts, to obtain the Planning Approvals, and there is no Developer Event of Default. (2) If this Agreement is terminated as a result of an Agency Event of Default. (3) If this Agreement is terminated pursuant to Section 2.3(b)(1) (in connection with an Unanticipated Condition of Approval that will materially adversely affect the Development's schedule or cost) or Section 2.3(b) (2) (in connection with the failure of the Planning Approvals to include vesting and phasing as provided in said section), and there is no Developer Event of Default. (4) If this Agreement is terminated pursuant to Section 2.3(c) (in connection with a Cristich Lane Condition of Approval), and there is no Developer Event of Default. (5) If this Agreement is terminated pursuant to Section 2.4 (in connection with utilities), and there is no Developer Event of Default. (6) If this Agreement is terminated pursuant to Section 2.5 (in connection with title insurance), and there is no Developer Event of Default. (7) If this Agreement is terminated pursuant to Sections 4.2(b) or 10.8(b) (in connection with a lawsuit or referendum), and there is no Developer Event of Default. (e) Through the Closing, if the Deposit is in the form of cash, then the Deposit (which is defined to include interest that accrues on the cash Deposit) shall be credited as a partial payment of the Developer's purchase price for the Property, and if the Deposit is in the form of a letter of credit, then the Agency shall release the letter of credit. 11 Section 2.3 ~lannin~ ADDrovals. (a) Within forty-five (45) days following the date of this Agreement, the~Developer shall submit to the City an application for the Planning Approvals that is complete to the fullest extent possible given best efforts. If the City's CommunityDevelopment Director requests additional materials from the Developer as part of, and which he believes are legally required for, the application for the Planning Approvals, then the Developer shall deliver such additional materials within fifteen (15) days of the request, unless delivery within fifteen (15) days is not possible with best efforts, in which case the Developer shall commence to cause delivery within such fifteen (15) days but shall have such longer period as may be reasonably necessary using best efforts. The Developer shall obtain the Planning Approvals, if at all, no later than two hundred ten (210) days following the date on which the application for the Planning Approvals is complete, as determined by the City's CommunityDevelopment Director, except that, at the election of Developer, this deadline shall be extended by the length of any City delays in processing the application that the Developer could not reasonably control through best efforts. Pursuant to Section 9.4 below, the Developer's failure to apply for the Planning A~provals, or deliver such additional materials as may be requested by the City's Community Development Director, by the specified deadlines shall be a Developer Event of Default if not cured within (15) days after notice from the Agency. (b) (1) Except as provided in Section 2.3(c) with respect to any Cristich Lane Condition of Approval, in the event of any Unanticipated Condition(s) of Approval that materially adversely delays construction of the Development or increases the cost of constructing the Development (as reasonably demonstrated by the Developer), the Parties shall meet in good faith to discuss the possibility of the Agency sharing the costs of such Unanticipated Condition(s) of Approval. Neither Party has any obligation to share such costs. If within thirty (30) days after the City's imposition of the applicable Unanticipated Condition(s) of Approval the Parties have not agreed to amend this Agreement to provide for allocation of the costs of the Unanticipated Condition(s) of Approval, and if there is no Developer Event of Default, then the Developer may terminate this Agreement without fault, and will be entitled to a return of the Deposit, if the Developer delivers to the Agency a notice of termination no earlier than thirty (30) days and no later than sixty (60) days after the City's imposition of the applicable Unanticipated Condition(s) of Approval. If the Developer does not deliver such notice by such deadline, then the Developer shall have no right 12 to terminate this Agreement on account of such Unanticipated Condition (s) of Approval. (b)(2) Nothing in this Agreement shall affect whether the laws in effect at the time of this Agreement will apply to the development of the Development. Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent the Developer from requesting that the PlanningApprovals permit phased development of the Development. However, if the Developer has applied to the City for a yesting tentative but the Planning Approvals do not include approval of a phased development plan or do not include approval of a vesting tentative map that locks in the laws and fees in effect as of the date of the completed application for such vesting tentative map to the extent permitted by state law and the City's implementing ordinance, then the Developer may terminate this Agreement no earlier than thirty (30) days and no later than sixty (60) days after City's issuance of the Planning Approvals. If the Developer does not deliver such notice by such deadline, then the Developer shall have no right to terminate this Agreement on account of the fact that the Planning Approvals do not include a vesting tentative map and/or the Planning Approvals do not permit phased development. (c) Any Cristich Lane Condition of Approval shall be subject to this Section 2.3(c). If there is a Cristich Lane Condition of Approval, and if the Agency has not committed, by the time set forth in the following sentence, to satisfying the Cristich Lane Condition of Approval to the extent necessary to enable the Developer to obtain building permits and certificates of occupancy for the Improvements, and if there is no Developer Event of Default, then the Developer may terminate this Agreement without fault, and will be entitled to a return of the Deposit, if the Developer delivers to the Agency a notice of termination. The Agency shall have at least sixty (60) days after the City's imposition of the Cristich Lane Condition of Approval to decide whether to commit to satisfying the Cristich Lane Condition of Approval to the extent described in the previous sentence, or such longer period not to exceed ninety (90) additional days (one hundred fifty (150) days total) as may be reasonably necessary given best efforts to determine whether the Agency can commit to satisfying the Cristich Lane Condition of Approval without undue risks of (1) avoidable inverse condemnation liability or (2) avoidable interference with the Agency's right to take property under condemnation'law. The Agency shall notify the Developer prior to expiration of the initial sixty (60) days whether and the extent to which an extension of time will be necessary. Additionally, the Agency shall notify the Developer at the expiration of the foregoing periods of whether it has committed to satisfy the Cristich Lane Condition of Approval to the extent described above. Any Developer notice of termination under this 13 Section 2.3(c) must be delivered to the Agency no earlier than the earlier of (1) the deadline set forth in the previous sentence for the Agency to make its decision, and (2) the Agency's actual decision, and no later than thirty (30) days after delivery'by the Agency of a notice to Developer at the expiration of the above-described period that it will not commit to satisfy the Cristich Lane Condition o~ Approval. If the Developer does not deliver such a notice during the prescribed period, then the Developer shall have no right to terminate this Agreement on account of the Cristich Lane Condition of Approval. Nothing in this Agreement commits the Agency to undertake performance of any Cristich Lane Condition of Approval; provided, however, that the Agency shall consider, in good faith, acceleration of development of CristichLane as contemplated by the Redevelopment Plan if such improvement is required as a Cristich Lane Condition of Approval. (d) Pursuant to Section 3.1(a), the Agency (as owner of the Property) shall provide best efforts assistance to the Developer in obtaining the Planning Approvals. (e) The Developer cannot control the outcome of the application for the Planning Approvals, and the Developer therefore does not guaranty that the Planning Approvals will be obtained. If the Developer is unable to obtain the Planning Approvals within the time specified in Section 2.3(a) in spite of best efforts to obtain the Planning Approvals, then either Party may terminate this Agreement pursuant to Section 9.2(a). Section 2.4 IDsurance: Utilities. (a) No later than ten (10) days prior to the date on which the Closing is otherwise expected to occur (and in any event no later than ten (10) days prior to the last date on which the Closing may occur under this Agreement), the Developer shall submit to the Agency evidence that the insurance requirements of Section 5.10 will be satisfied at the time of the Closing. (b) The Developer has no duty to obtain any commitments in connection with utility services for the Development as a condition of the Closing. However, if the Developer discovers, prior to the City's grant of the Planning Approvals, that a utility service that is necessary for the Development is unavailable (and not merely more difficult or costly to obtain than the Developer had anticipated), and if there is no Developer Event of Default, then the Developer may terminate this Agreement without fault, and will be entitled to a return of the Deposit, if the Developer delivers to the Agency a notice of termination 14 no later than the City's grant of the Planning Approvals. If the Developer does not deliver such notice by such deadline, then the Developer shall have no right to terminate this Agreement on account of the unavailability of a utility service that is necessary for the Development. Section 2.5 Title Insurance T.he Developer has no duty to purchase the Property unless a title insurer reasonably acceptable to the Developer is willing tO issue a CLTA owner's title policy (and a lender's policy, if applicable) insuring the Developer's interest in the Property subject only to the Permitted Exceptions and such other ~.xceptions as may be caused by the Developer (such as the lien of a Security Financing Interest), together with such endorsements as the Developer may reasonably require. If the Developer requests and pays for an ALTA-certified survey of the Property prior to the Closing, then the condition in the previous sentence shall be the title insurer's willingness to issue an ALTA owner's title policy rather than a CLTA owner's title policy. Nothing in this Section 2.5 relieves the Agency of its duties under Section 4.3. Section 2.6 D~emed Effective Date of plaDnina ADDrovals. For purposes of this Article 2, the Planning Approvals shall be deemed issued, and conditions of the Planning Approvals shall be deemed imposed, upon the final act of the City Council of the City required to make the Planning Approvals final, and the Agency's delivery to the Developer of a notice indicating that the Planning Approvals have been issued. ARTICLE 3.. AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES Section 3.1 Aaencv Non-Financial Assistance. (a) The Agency (as owner of the property) shall provide best efforts assistance to the Developer in obtaining the Planning Approvals and all other permits, approvals, easements (whether temporary or permanent), and "will serve" letters necessary for construction of the Improvements. Nothing in this Section 3.1(a) commits the Agency to actually obtaining any easements. (b) The Agency (as owner of the Property) shall use best efforts to cause the Planning Approvals to be issued in a timely manner and in a streamlined process. However, the Developer acknowledges that the Agency and the City are separate entities, 15 and that the Agency cannot control the timeliness or outcome of the City's processing of the Planning Approvals. (c) The Agency shall encourage, support, and facilitate the revitalization, redevelopment, and improvement of private property in the McGlincey Lane area, par~icularly along Cristich Lane. Section 3.2 AaencvAssistance For Storm Drain ImDrQvements. (a) Nature of Assistance. One of the Anticipated Conditions of Approval is construction of storm drain improvements that conform to the specifications described in the attached Exhibit G (the "Anticipated Storm Drain Improvements"). The Agency shall pay for construction of the Anticipated Storm Drain Improvements, up to a total amount of Five Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($550,000), in accordance with this Section 3.2 (the "Agency Assistance"). However, the Agency has no duty to pay for any storm drain improvements that are not Anticipated Storm Drain Improvements. (b) Location of Storm Drain Improvements. The Anticipated Storm Drain Improvements extend from the point where Cristich Lane currently terminates at the southwest portion of the Property, through the Property to the northeast property line where the Property abuts the Paseo de Palomas Mobile Home Park, across the access drive, and connecting to the main storm drain line at Union Avenue, as more fully set forth in the attached Exhibit G. (c) Conditions. The Agency shall have no obligation to disburse any of the Five Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($550,000) of the Agency Assistance unless the following conditions have been and continue to be satisfied= (1) The Agency must have reasonably approved in writing all construction documentation upon which the Developer and its contractors will rely in building the Anticipated Storm Drain Improvements prior to the commencement of construction of the Anticipated Storm Drain Improvements, including (to the extent applicable) final architectural drawings, landscaping plans and specifications, final elevations, building plans and specifications (also known as 'working drawings'), and a time schedule for construction. (2) The Agency must have reasonably approved in writing (A) the identity of the original (general) contractor or 16 contractors who will construct the Anticipated Storm Drain Improvements and (B) the construction contract between the Developer and each such original (general) contractor, prior to the commencement of construction of the Anticipated Storm Drain Improvements. Each contract that the Developer enters for construction of the Anticipated Storm Drain Improvements shall provide that at least ten percent (10%) of the costs incurred shall be payable only upon substantial completion of construction. Each such contract shall provide for a hol~back for punch list items to the extent permitted by law. (3) The Agency must have reasonably approved in writing the budget for developing the Anticipated Storm Drain Improvements, including design, construction, and project contingency costs, prior to entering into any original (general) construction contract or contracts. (4) The Developer has furnished the Agency with evidence of the following insurance coverage (and additional evidence at the request of Agency prior to each progress payment to be made as set forth below) (in addition to the insurance coverage required under Section 5.10): property insurance covering the Anticipated Storm Drain Improvements, particularly covering all risks of loss, including flood if applicable, for one hundred percent (100%) of the replacement value, with deductible (if any) acceptable to the Agency. (5) The undisbursed proceeds of the Agency Assistance, together with other funds or firm commitments for funds that the Developer ha~ obtained in connection with the Development, are not less than the amount that the Agency determines is necessary to pay for completion of the Anticipated Storm Drain Improvements and to satisfy all of the covenants regarding the Anticipated Storm Drain Improvements contained in this Agreement. (6) The Agency has received copies of labor and material (payment) bonds and performance bonds, or a dual bond which covers both payment and performance obligations, with respect to the construction of the Anticipated Storm Drain Improvements in a penal sum each of not less than one hundred percent (100%) of the scheduled cost of construction. Such bonds must be issued by an insurance company reasonably acceptable to the Agency, and must name the Agency as a co-obligee or assignee. (7) The Agency has received a written request from the Developer setting forth the proposed uses of funds for construction of the Anticipated Storm Drain Improvements, the amount of funds needed, and, where applicable, a copy of the bill or invoice covering a cost incurred or to be incurred. When a disbursement is requested to pay any contractor in connection 17 with the Anticipated Storm Drain Improvements, the written request must be accompanied by certification by the Developer's architect or engineer reasonably acceptable to the Agency that the work for which disbursement is requested has been completed (although the Agency reserves the right to inspect the work and make an independent evaluation), and until substantial completion of the Anticipated Storm Drain Improvements the written request must not include a request for the ten p~rcent (10%) retainage required by the Agency-approved original contract or contracts, and the architect or engineer certifying the completion of the work must also certify that the request properly accounts for the retainage. Only upon substantial completion of the Anticipated Storm Drain Improvements may a written request for funds seek the ten percent (10%) retainage, subject to holdback for punch list items to the extent permitted by law. Final payment will be made following completion of punch list items. (d) Disbursements. Upon satisfaction of the conditions as required by Section 3.2(c), the Agency shall from time to time promptly disburse the amount of funds specified in each written request delivered under Section 3.2(c) (7), until disbursement of the lesser of (1) Five Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($550,000) of the Agency Assistance or (2) the total certified costs of the Anticipated Storm Drain Improvements. (e) Requirements. The Developer shall comply with the following requirements: (1) The Developer must not approve any change order in the Agency-approved original (general) contract or contracts without the Agency's previous written approval. The Agency will not withhold its approval unreasonably, nor will the Agency take longer than ten (10) days to consider a written request for approval of a change order. Any proposed change order not approved or disapproved within such ten (10) days shall be deemed approved. Any disapproval shall be in writing and shall explain the basis for disapproval. (2) The Developer shall comply with the requirements of Sections 5.5 (regarding compliance with applicable law) and 5.6 (regarding equal opportunity) with respect to the Anticipated Storm Drain Improvements. (3) The Developer shall offer to dedicate the completed Anticipated Storm Drain Improvements to the City. (4) If the Agency Assistance is inadequate to cause completion of the Anticipated Storm Drain Improvements, then the Developer shall cause completion of the Anticipated Storm Drain Improvements with funds other than the Agency Assistance. Section 3.3 ~ommunitv Facilities District. (a) Nature of District. If requested in writing by the Developer, and'subject to the Developer's cooperation in the formation process as provided in Section 3.3(b) below, the Agency shall form (or cause ~he City to form) a ?ommunity facilities district (the "Community Facilities Dist~1ct") with the authority under state law to finance the development, design, construction, and acquisition of specified public facilities, amenities, and improvements related to the Development (collectively the "CFD- Developed Improvements"). If the Developer does not request in writing and cooperate in the formation of the Community Facilities District, or if the Agency (or City) reasonably determines, consistent with the further provisions of this Section 3.3, not to issue bond financing for the CFD-Developed Improvements, then the Developer shall be responsible for arranging financing for the cost of such improvements from other sources. If bond financing through the Community Facilities District is made available for a portion, but not all, of the CFD-Developed Improvements, then the Developer shall be responsible for arranging financing for the balance of the CFD- Developed Improvements. (b) Formation. If requested in writing by the Developer, and subject to the Developer's cooperation in the formation process as provided in this Section 3.3(b), promptly following the Closing the Agency shall form (or cause the City to form) the Community Facilities District under applicable state law authority. The Community Facilities District described in this Agreement shall not be limited to a district formed under the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982. The CFD-Developed Improvements shall not include any improvements other than those approved by the Developer. The Developer shall not protest the formation of the Community Facilities District, and shall provide all reasonable assistance to the Agency (or the City) in such formation, including, if required, voting affirmatively for the formation of the Community Facilities District. However, the Developer shall reserve the right to protest the rate or apportionment of special taxes or assessments over property within the Community Facilities District. (c) J~. For the purposes of the levy of assessments or special taxes, the Community Facilities District shall include any portion of the Property owned in fee by the Developer and specified by the Developer, and shall not include any land that is not part of the Property and owned in fee by the Developer. The Community Facilities District may finance 19 improvements outside of the boundaries of the Property to the extent otherwise consistent with the provisions of this Section 3.3. (d) Development of CFD-DeveloDed Improvements. The Community Facilities District shall finance directly (or reimburse the Developer or the Agency (or the Clty) for) all costs, ~xpenses, fees, and other charges-!including without limitat~on the costs of underwriting and zssuing bonds, other financing costs, and the refinancing or retirement of existing assessments of other debt) incurred in connection with the development, design, construction, and acquisition by the Agency (or the City) of the CFD-Developed Improvement~, subject to3 (~) the Agency's (or City's) reasonable determinate?9 ~? ~sue m?n~s, provided below in this Section 3.3; (2) the £1ml=a=xons as applicable %a~ regarding eligible costs and improveme?t~; and (3) the availabll~ty of funds to or for the Community Fac~11ties District. Subject to the foregoing limitations, ~he .C~D- Developed Improvements shall include, at the Deve£oper's reques=, such public facilities, amenities, and improvements as may be required to implement this Agreement. However, the Anticipated Storm Drain Improvements shall not be CFD-Developed Improvements except to the extent of financing other than the Agency Assistance. (e) Proposal For Bonded Indebtedness. Following or concurrently with formation of t~e Community Facilities District, the Developer may from time to txme submit an applicatign (a b .Financing Application") for issuance of bonded indebtectness Y t~o ~m,,nitv Facilities District. The Financing Application, ............. ~ . · ' unt an~ shall include a detailed statement of th~ ~r%n~z~l.amo -d proposed uses of the proceeds of the bon~e~ xn~eD=eoness, an such additional information as may be reasonably necessary to enable the Agency (or the City) ~o de~ermine if the proposed_ ~.~ ~.~.an..s is timelv, f~nanc~ally feasible, and prugent. the Agency (or the Cxty) sha%l.evaluate the Fin.ancingAppllcatxon for compliance with the provzslons of this Sectxon 3.~(~), and to determzne whether the proposed bonded indebtedness is tzmely, financial%y feasible, and prudent. For this.purpose, the.Agency (or the Czty) shall obtain the advice of an xndependent fxnanczal indebtedness by the Community Fac~lxtz~s mls~r~c=_~ . ...... , similar debt issued by the Agency or the City and with the 20 requirements of the financial markets for such debt at the time of issuance. Under no circumstance shall any Community Facilities District debt constitute a lien or contingent lien on any assets or resources of the City or the Agency, other than moneys derived from the subject bond sale proceeds, property owner assessment payments or special tax payments, and corresponding ~nterest earnings. (f) ~ssuance of Bonds. If and to the extent the Agency (or the City) determines that indebtedness p~oposed in a Financing Application is consistent with the provisions of this Section 3.3, the Agency (or the City) shall commence and diligently conduct proceedings under the applicable state law authority for the purpose of arranging bond financing for the CFD-Developed Improvements described in the approved Financing Application. All such financing shall be tax-exempt to the maximum extent possible. (g) Developer Cooperation. The Developer shall execute and deliver such documents as are reasonably required by the Agency (or the City) in connection with the formation of, issuance of indebtedness by, or performance of functions of the Community Facilities District, including (without limitation) an acquisition and property owner disclosure agreement and a securities law continuing disclosure certificate. (h) Costs. The costs of formation and operation of, and issuance of bonds by, the Community Facilities District shall be paid, subject to applicable legal limitations, by the Connmlnity Facilities District. Any such costs not paid by the Community Facilities District shall be paid by the Developer. The costs of formation and operation of, and issuance of bonds by, the Community Facilities District may include (without limitation) the following: (1) reasonable costs incurred by the Agency (or the City) for in-house staff and the Agency (or the City)'s financial advisors, consultants, bond counsel, special tax administrator, and information dissemination entity in connection with the formation of the Community Facilities District, the review and approval or disapproval of Financing Applications, the issuance of bonds, the calculation and administration of special taxes, and the ongoing a~ministration of the Community Facilities District (including any costs incurred by the Agency (or the City) in satisfying securities law continuing disclosure requirements); and (2) a reasonable Agency (or the City) fee for annual administration of the Community Facilities District and annual administration of bonded indebtedness. (i) McGlincev Lane Access Road Fee Ac=uisition. If the Developer requests that the CFD-Developed Improvements include improvements on the portion of the Property to be used as an 21 access road (the "Access Road") between McGlincey Lane and the remainder of the Property, and if the underlying fee ownership of the Access Road must be acquired to qualify the Improvements on the Access Road as CFD-Developed Improvements, and if there has been approval Of bond issuance in accordance with this Section 3.3, then the Agency shall negotiate with the owners of the underlying fee interests for voluntary sale of such interests to the Agency. If the Agency is unable to secure voluntary sale agreements for any such fee interests, then the Agency shall take all actions required by law to schedule consideration of a resolution of necessity regarding condemnation of such fee interests. However, nothing in this Agreement limits the Agency's discretion in consideration of a resolution of necessity. Any Agency costs actually and reasonably incurred in connection with efforts to acquire such fee interests, whether by voluntary negotiation or eminent domain, shall be reimbursed to the Agency by the Community Facilities District to the extent of available funds consistent with applicable law, and by the Developer to the extent otherwise unreimbursed. ARTICLE 4. DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY Section 4.1 Qpenina Escrow. To accomplish the conveyance of the Property from the Agency to the Developer, the Parties shall establish an escrow with the Escrow Holder and shall execute and deliver to the Escrow Holder written instructions that are consistent with this Agreement. Section 4.2 Close of Escrow: Conveyance of Property: ~yment of Purchase Price. (a) So long as there is not in effect, on the date thirty (30) days after the filing of a notice of determination of the Planning Approvals under CEQA, any judicial challenge to the Planning Approvals, and so long as there has not been, by such deadline, any apparent qualification of a ballot measure referring the Planning Approvals to the voters of the City, the Closing shall occur no later than sixty (60) days after the filing of the CEQA notice of determination. This deadline shall automatically be extended by the determinationperiods set forth in Sections 2.3(b) and (c), if applicable. In addition, the Closing shall be extended for the period set forth in any amendment to this Agreement entered into pursuant to Section 4.2(b) or Section 10.8(b) below. (b) If on the date thirty (30) days after the filing of a notice of determination of the Planning Approvals there is in 22 effect a judicial challenge to the Planning Approvals or there have been submitted petitions in apparently sufficient number and form to qualify a ballot measure referring the Planning Approvals to the voters of the City, then the Parties shall, for a period of at least one hundred eighty (180) days (or such longer period as the Parties may agree upon in writing), consider and negotiate in diligent good faith about how to continue with the development of the Development. If within such negotiating period the Parties reach agreement regarding how to continue with the development of the Development in light o'f the pending Judicial challenge or referendum ballot measure, then the Parties shall memorialize such agreement in an amendment to this Agreement, which amendment may include, among other matters, any agreed-upon extension of time for performance under this Agreement including the revised deadline for Closing. If the Parties cannot agree b~ the expiration of such negotiating period on a course of continuing with the development of the Development, then either Party may terminate this Agreement by notice to the other Par~y, and the Agency shall return the Deposit to the Developer. If the Agency terminates this Agreement prior to an event having occurred as described in Section 9.2(a) (2) of this Agreement, then in addition to a return of the Deposit, the Agency shall refund to the Developer Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000), which represents the initial deposit by the Developer used to prepare the EIR under the exclusive negotiating rights agreement under which the Parties negotiated this Agreement. (c) Through the Closing, the Agency shall convey, and the Developer shall accept conveyance of, the Property byexecution and delivery of the Grant Deed. (d) Through the Closing, the Developer shall pay to the Agency the amount of Eight Million Dollars ($8,000,000). If the Deposit is in the form of cash, then the Deposit (which is defined to include interest that accrues on the cash Deposit) shall be credited as a partial payment of this amount, and if the Deposit is in the form of a letter of credit, then the Agency shall release the letter of credit. Section 4.3 Condition of Title. The Agency shall convey the Property free of all liens, encumbrances, clouds, conditions, and rights of occupancy and possession, except the Permitted Exceptions. Section 4.4 Condition of the Property. (a) ~. In fulfillment of the requirements of Health and Safety Code Section 25359.7(a), the Agency has provided the Developer with copies of the environmental studies 23 listed in the attached Exhibit C. To the best of the Agency's knowledge, (1) the environmental studies described in Exhibit C depict the condition of the Property with respect to the matters covered in such studies as of the date of such studies, and (2) there are no Hazardous Materials on or under the Property that are not disclosed in such environmental studies. The Agency shall promptly notify the Developer if the Agency becomes aware of Hazardous Materials on or under the Property prior to the Closing. (b) "As Is" Conveyance. The Property shall be conveyed to the Developer in "as is" condition, and the Agency shall not be responsible for demolition, site preparation, any other removal or placement of improvements, soil conditions, or removing any subsurface obstruction or correcting any subsurface condition, other than as reasonably required to correct any such condition occurring subsequent to execution of this Agreement and prior to the Closing. The Agency shall have no responsibility for the suitability of the Property for the development of the Development, and if the conditions of the Property are not entirely suitable for the development of the Development, then the Developer shall put the Property in a condition suitable for the Improvements to be constructed. The Developer waives any right of reimbursement or indemnification from the Agency for the Developer's costs related to any physical conditions on the Property. This waiver shall survive termination of this Agreement. The foregoing waiver shall not affect the liability of the Agency under third party claims. Section 4.5 Costs of Escrow and Closinq. Ad valorem taxes, if any, for the Property shall be prorated as of the Closing date. The lien of any bond or assessment related to the Property shall be assumed by the Developer and assessments payable thereon shall be prorated as of the date of the conveyance of the Property to the Developer, to the extent that the lien is a Permitted Exception. The Developer shall pay for any title insurance it requests or obtains. All other costs of escrow (including, without limitation, any Escrow Holder's fee, costs of title company document preparation, recording fees, and transfer tax) shall be borne one-half (1/2) by the Agency and one-half (1/2) by the Developer. Section 4.6 Real Estate Commissions. Each Party represents and warrants that it has not entered into any agreement, and has no obligation, to pay any real estate commission in connection with the transaction contemplated by 24 this Agreement. If a real estate commission is claimed through either Party in connection with the transaction contemplated by this Agreement, then the Party through whom the commission is claimed shall indemnify, defend and hold the other Party harmless from any liability related to .such commission. The provisions of this section shall survive termination of this Agreement. ARTICLE 5. OBLIGATIONS THROUGH COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION Section 5.1 APPlicability. The Developer shall comply with the provisions of this Article 5 with respect to a given Post-Map Parcel (or with respect to the entire Property, if the Developer does not cause a subdivision of the Property) from the date of Closing to the date of issuance of an Estoppel Certificate of Completion for that Post-Map Parcel (or for the entire Property, if applicable). Section 5.2 ~Qmmenc~m~n~ ~d ~QmDletion of Construction. (a) Except as set forth in Section 5.2(b), the Developer shall commence construction of the Improvements according to the schedule established by the Developer, which may include phased development of the Improvements (whether on the Property as a whole or on different Post-Map Parcels). (b) The Developer shall commence construction of not less than forty thousand (40,000) square feet of building space of the Improvements (one building) and ancillary parking, landscaping, and site improvements within twenty-four (24) months after the Closing, subject to Force Majeure, as defined in Section 10.18. (c) The Developer shall diligently prosecute to completion the construction of any Improvements on which construction has commenced, and shall complete the construction of such Improvements (exclusive of any tenant improvements within the basic shell of such Improvements) no later than twenty-four (24) months after commencement of construction subject to Force Majeure. As between the Agency and the Developer, and except as specifically provided otherwise in this Agreement, as the same may be amended, the Developer shall be solely responsible for the construction (including all associated costs) of the Improvements and all off-site improvements required as a condition of governmental approvals of the Improvements. Section 5.3 Pre-Construction Re=uirements. Prior to the Developer's commencement of construction of any particular Improvements, the Agency must have reasonably approved 25 in writing all construction documentation upon which the Developer and its contractors wall rely in building such Improvements (exclusive of any tenant improvements within the basic shell of such Improvements), including (to the extent applicable) final architectural drawings, landscaping plans and specifications] final elevations, building plans and specifications (also known as "working drawings"), and a time schedule for construction (the 'Final Construction Plans'). Unless the Agency notifies the Developer'inwriting within ten (10) days of receipt of proposed Final Construction Plans that they have been disapproved, they shall be deemed approved. If the Agency rejects any proposed Final Construction Plans, then the Agency shall provide the Developer with the specific reasons therefor. The Agency's review shall be limited to determining conformity of the proposed Final Construction Plans with this Agreement, the Planning Approvals, and applicable law. If the Developer disputes an Agency disapproval of proposed Final Construction Plans, then the Developer may refer the matter to arbitration following the method set forth in Section 2.2(b) (except that the matter to be determined is approval of the Final Construction Plans). Section 5.4 Construction Pursuant To ADDroved Plans. (a) The Developer shall construct the Improvements in accordance with the applicable approved Final Construction Plans and the terms and conditions of the PlanningApprovals and all other governmental approvals. (b) Any proposed material change in the Final Construction Plans shall be submitted by the Developer for Agency approval. The Agency shall approve or disapprove a proposed material change within fourteen (14) days after receipt by the Agency. Failure to approve or disapprove within fourteen (14) days shall be deemed to be approval to such change. If the Agency rejects the proposed material change, then the Agency shall provide the Developer with the specific reasons therefor, and the approved Final Construction Plans shall continue to control. The Agency's review shall be limited to determining conformity of the proposed material change in the Final Construction Plans with this Agreement, the Planning Approvals, and applicable law. If the Developer disputes an Agency disapproval of a proposed material change in the Final Construction Plans, then the Developer may refer the matter to arbitration following the method set forth in Section 2.2(b) (except that the matter to be determined is approval of the proposed material change). 26 (c) No change which is required for compliance with 'building codes or other government health and safety regulation shall be deemed material. However, the Developer must submit to the Agency any change that is required for such compliance within a reasonable time after making such change, and such change shall become a part of the approved Final Construction Plans, binding on the Developer. Section 5.5 Compliance with APPlicable Law. (a) The Developer shall cause all work performed in connection with the Property to be performed in compliance with (1) all applicable laws, ordinances, rules and regulations of federal, state, county or municipal governments or agencies now in force or that may be enacted hereafter and which is binding on the Developer, (including, without limitation, the prevailing wage provisions of Sections 1770 et se~. of the California Labor Code, but only to the extent applicable), and (2) all directions, rules and regulations of any fire marshal, health officer, building inspector, or other officer of every governmental agency now having or hereafter acquiring jurisdiction. The work shall proceed only after procurement of each permit, license, or other authorization that may be required by any governmental agency having jurisdiction, and the Developer shall be responsible to the Agency for the procurement and maintenance thereof, as maybe required of the Developer and all entities engaged in work on the Property. Nothing in this Agreement shall affect the.Developer's right to contest the appropriateness or legality of any directions, .rules, or regulations. In addition, the Agency is not imposing on the Developer any independent duty to pay prevailing wages. (b) In performing work under this Agreement related to improvements that are or will be publicly owned or otherwise constitute public works or .improvements within the meaning of applicable statutes, the Developer shall comply with all applicable requirements for design, construction and installation of such public improvements, including (without limitation) compliance with the applicable provisions of Public Contract Code Sections 20688.1-20688.4 regarding competitive bidding of work, and compliance with the prevailing wage requirements of Labor Code Sections 1990 et seo. and corresponding regulations. However, the Agency is not imposing on the Developer any independent duties regarding the design, construction, or installation of public improvements. Section 5.6 Employment ODDortunitv. During the construction and operation of the Improvements there shall be no discrimination on the basis of race, color, 27 creed, sexual orientation, religion, sex, physical or mental disability, marital status, national origin, ancestry, or handicap in the hiring, firing, promoting, or demoting of any person engaged.in the construction, use, and operation of the Improvements. Section 5.7 EstoDp~ ~grtificate o~ Completion. (a) When the Agency has determined that the obligations of the Developer under this Article 5 have been met, the Developer may request that the Agency issue a certificate to such effect (an "Estoppel Certificate of Completion"), which the Agency shall do within thirty (30) days of such a request. Such certification shall not be deemed a notice of completion under the California Civil Code, nor shall it constitute evidence of compliance with or satisfaction of any obligation of the Developer to any holder of deed of trust securing money loaned to finance the Improvements. If the Developer requests issuance of an Estoppel Certificate of Completion but the Agency refuses, then the Agency shall provide the Developer with a written explanation of its refusal within ten (10) days of the Developer's request. The' Estoppel Certificate of Completion shall be in recordable form and shall contain provisions sufficient to extinguish of record, as to the applicable Post-Map Parcel (or the entire Property, as applicable), the obligations under this Agreement and paragraph numbered I of the Grant Deed. (b) An Estoppel Certificate of Completion shall be issued for any Post-Map Parcel with respect to which the Developer has completed all of its obligations under this Article 5 applicable to such Post-Map Parcel, including completion of all private buildings on the Post-Map Parcel consistent with the Planning Approvals and all improvements not on the Post-Map Parcel but nonetheless constituting Post-Map Parcel Improvements applicable to such Post-Map Parcel. However, until there is an Agency- approved exhibit of Post-Map Parcel Improvements attached to and incorporated into this Agreement as Exhibit H, an Estoppel Certificate of Completion may be issued only for the entirety of the Property and the Improvements. Exhibit H shall be prepared as follows: (1) If the Developer subdivides the Property into the Post-Map Parcels, then the Developer shall submit to the Agency, within a reasonable period of time after recordation of the final subdivision map effectuating the subdivision, a proposed exhibit of Post-Map Parcel Improvements for the purposes of issuance of an Estoppel Certificate of Completion with respect to each Post- 28 Map Parcel. For these purposes, the term "Post-Map Parcel Improvements" shall mean not only the Improvements to be built on a particular Post-Map Parcel, but also such other improvements not located on the Post-Map Parcel as may be associated with the Improvements to be developed on the Post-Map Parcel as conditions of the Planning Approvals. (2) Unless the Agency notifies the Developer in writing within ten (10) days of receipt of a proposed exhibit of Post-Map Parcel Improvements that it has'been disapproved, it shall be deemed approved. If the Agency rejects any proposed exhibit of Post-Map Parcel Improvements, then the Agency shall provide the Developer with the specific reasons therefor. If the Developer disputes an Agency disapproval of a proposed exhibit of Post-Map Parcel Improvements, then the Developer may refer the matter to arbitration following the method set forth in Section 2.2(b) (except that the matter to be determined is approval of the exhibit of pOst-Map Parcel Improvements). The Agency- approved exhibit of Post-Map Parcel Improvements shall be attached to and incorporated into this Agreement as Exhibit H. Section 5.8 profess Reports. Until such time as the Developer is entitled to issuance of an Estoppel Certificate of Completion, the Developer shall provide the Agency with periodic progress reports, as reasonably requested by the Agency, regarding the status of the construction of the Improvements. Section 5.9 ~ntrv by the Aaencv. The Developer shall permit the Agency, through its officers, agents, or employees, to enter the Property at all reasonable times to inspect the work of construction to determine that such work is in conformity with the approved Final Construction Plans or to inspect the Property for compliance with this Agreement. The Agency is under no obligation to (a) supervise construction, (b) inspect the Property, or (c) inform the Developer of information obtained by the Agency during any inspection, and the Developer shall not rely upon the Agency for any supervision, inspection, or information. However, the Agency shall share information that it may obtain that the Agency reasonably believes would affect any payment to be made by the Agency to the Developer under Section 3.2. Section 5.10 ~eneral Indemnity and Insurance. (a) The Developer shall indemnify, defend, and hold the Agency, the City, their directors, officers, employees, and agents, and their successors and assigns (the "Indemnified 29 Parties") harmless against all claims which arise out of or in connection with entry onto, ownership of, occupancy in, or construction on the Property by the Developer or the Developer's contractors, subcontractors, agents, employees or tenants (including any'claim brought by a prospective tenant under a space lease, as further described in Section 7.5 below). This indemnity obligation shall not extend to.any claim arising solely from an Indemnified Party's negligence or failure to perform its obligations under this Agreement, and shall survive termination of this Agreement (but shall not survive issuance of an Estoppel Certificate of Completion with respect to a particular Post-Map Parcel or the Property as a whole, as applicable). (b) The Developer shall furnish or cause to be furnished to the Agency and City duplicate originals or appropriate certificates of Worker's Compensation Insurance (to the extent and in the amount such insurance is required by law), and certificates of bodily injury and property damage insurance policies in the amount of at least Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000) combined single limit coverage naming the Agency and the City as additional insureds. Such policies shall be kept in force until the Developer is entitled to issuance of an Estoppel Certificate of Completion for each and every Post-Map Parcel (or for the entire Property, if the Developer does not cause a subdivision of the Property), and shall provide that they cannot be cancelled or reduced in coverage or amount without at least thirty (30) days written notice to the Agency and the City. Section 5.11 ~azardous Materials. (a) The Developer shall not unlawfully use, generate, manufacture, store or dispose of on, under, or about the Property or transport to or from the Proper~y any flammable explosives, radioactive materials, hazardous wastes, toxic substances or related materials, including without limitation, any substances defined as or included in the definition of 'hazardous substances," hazardous wastes,' 'hazardous materials,' or wtoxic substances" under any applicable federal or state laws or regulations (collectively referred to as 'Hazardous Materials'). (b) Following the Closing, the Developer shall immediately advise the Agency in writing if at any time it receives written notice of (1) any and all enforcement, cleanup, removal or other governmental or regulatory actions instituted, completed or threatened against the Developer or the Property pursuant to any applicable federal, state or local laws, ordinances, or regulations relating to any Hazardous Materials, (WHazardous Materials Law"); (2) all claims made or threatened by any third 30 party against the Developer or the Property relating to damage, contribution, cost recovery compensation, loss or injury resulting from any Hazardous Materials (the matters set forth in clauses (1) and (2) above are referred to as "Hazardous Materials Claims"); and (3) the Developer's discovery of any occurrence or condition on any real property adjoining or in the vicinity of the Property that could cause part or all of the Property to be classified as "border-zone property" under the provision of California Health and Safety Code Sections 25220 et eeo. or any implementing regulation, or to be otherwise subject to any restrictions on the ownership, occupancy, transferability or use of the Property under any Hazardous Materials Law. (c) The Agency shall have the right to join and participate in, as a party if it so elects, any legal proceedings or actions initiated in connection with any Hazardous Materials Claims and to have its reasonable attorneys' fees in connection with the proceedings or actions paid by the Developer. The Developer shall indemnify and hold harmless the Indemnified Parties from and against any loss, damage, cost, expense or liability directly or indirectly arising out of third-party claims against the Indemnified Paries as a result of the use, generation, storage, release, threatened release, discharge, disposal, or presence of Hazardous Materials on, under, or about the Property caused by, through, or under the Developer (including its tenants), including without limitation: (1) all foreseeable consequential damages; (2) the costs of any required or necessary repair, cleanup or detoxification of the Property and the preparation and implementation of any closure, remedial or other required plans; and (3) all reasonable costs and expenses incurred by the Indemnified Parties in connection with clauses (1) and (2), including but not limited to reasonable attorneys' fees. This obligation to indemnify shall survive termination of this Agreement (but.shall not survive issuance of an Estoppel Certificate of Completion with respect to a particular Post-Map Parcel or the Property as a whole, as applicable). The Developer may defend the Indemnified Parties with an attorney selected by the Developer and reasonably approved by the A~ency. Nothing in this Section 5.11(c) requires the Developer to indemnify the Indemnified Parties for losses arising out of Hazardous Materials that were present on the Property as of the Closing to the extent the Developer has done nothing to increase the Indemnified Parties' liability. Section 5.12 Taxes. The Developer shall pay when due all real property taxes and assessments assessed and levied on the Property, and shall remove any levy or attachment made on the Property. The Developer may, 31 however, contest the validity or amount of any tax, assessment, or lien on the Property. ARTICLE 6. OBLIGATIONS DURING AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION Section 6.1 ~DDlicabilitv. The Developer shall comply with the p~ovisions of th%s Article 6 from the date of the Closing untxl the termXnatxon of this Agreement, which shall occur upon the later to occur of (a) the thirtieth (30th) anniversary of the date of execution of this Agreement, or (b) the expiratxon of the Redevelopment Plan. The covenants set forth in this Article 6 shall be contxnuing covenants of the Developer and its successors and assigns with respect to the Property, and shall be contained in the Grant Deed. Section 6.2 Use. Operation. and Maintenance. T=- ~ .... ~---~ and its successors and assigns shall use,L~ . ' xn a manner consistent wx operate, and maintain the Property . . . . . the Redevelopment Plan and all applicable ~ws_an~_regu£~=%ons. that development of ~ne Deve£opmen~ xn The Agency represents accordance with the Planning Approvals is consistent with and conforms to the Redevelopment Plan. The Agency shall not cause any modification of the Redevelopment Plan that would cause the Improvements (as built in accordance with the Planning Approvals) to be inconsistent and/or not in conformity with the Redevelopment Plan. Section 6.3 Non-Discrimination. The Developer covenants by and for itself and it? successors and assigns that there shall be no discrimination agaxnst or _ se re ation of a person or of a ~roup ~f persons on account oz g g ..... ~=-~- -exual orzentatxon, creed, sex, physical. 1n the sale, lease, sublease, transfer, use, occupancy, tenure or en'o ent of the Property, nor shall the Developer or any person -].Y~' -~ .... ~ .... -h the Developer establish or permit a~y. such practice or practices o= ~=scr=m~na==on or segregation a reference to the selection, location, number, use or occupancy of tenants, lessees, subtenants, sublessees or vendees in the Property. The foregoing covenant shall run with =he land. 32 Section 6.4 MaDdatory Lan~uaae in All Subseouent Deeds. heaves and Contracts. All deeds, leases or contracts entered into by the Developer on or after the date of execution of this Agreement as to any portion of the. Property shall contain the following language: (a) In Deeds: "Grantee herein covenants by and for itself, its successors and assigns that there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of a person or of a group of persons on account of race, color, religion, sexual orientation, creed, sex, physical or mental disability, marital status, ancestry or national origin in the sale, lease, sublease, transfer, use, occupancy, tenure or enjoyment of the property herein conveyed nor shall the grantee or any person claiming under or through the grantee establish or permit any such practice or practices of discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location, number, use or occupancy of tenants, lessees, subtenants, sublessees or vendees in the property herein conveyed. The foregoing covenant shall run with the land." (b) In Leases: "The lessee herein covenants by and for the lessee and lessee's heirs, personal representatives and assigns and all persons claiming under the lessee or through the lessee that his lease is made subject to the condition that there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of any person or of a group of persons on account of race, color, religion, sexual orientation, creed, sex, physical or mental disability, marital status, ancestry or national origin in the leasing, subleasing, transferring, use, occupancy, tenure or enjoyment of the land herein leased nor shall the lessee or any person claiming under or through the lessee establish or permit any such practice or practices of discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location, number, use or occupancy of tenants, lessees, 33 sublessees, subtenants, or vendees in the land herein leased." (c) In Contracts: "There shall be no discrimination against or segregation of any person or g~oup of persons on account of race, color, religion, sexual orientation, creed, sex, physical or mental disability, marital status, ancestry or national origin in the sale, lease, sublease, transfer, use, occupancy, tenure or enjoyment of the property nor shall the transferee or any person claiming under or through the transferee establish or permit any such practice or practices of discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location, number, use or occupancy of tenants, lessees, subtenants, sublessees, or vendees of the land." ARTICLE 7. ASSIGNMENT ANDTRANSFERS Section 7.1 D~finitions. As used in this Article 7, the term "Transfer" means: (a) Any total or partial sale, assignment or conveyance, or any trust or power, or any transfer in any other mode of form, of or with respect to this Agreement or of the Property or any part thereof or any.interest therein or of the improvements constructed thereon, or any contract or agreement to do any of the same; or (b) Any total or partial sale, assignment or conveyance, or any trust or power, or any transfer in any other mode or form, of or with respect to any legal or equitable ownership interest in the Developer or any member of the Developer, or any contract or agreement to do any of the same. Section 7.2 Puroose of Restrictions on Transfer. This Agreement is entered into solely for the purpose of development and operatiog of the Development on the Property and its subsequent use in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. The qualifications and identity of the Developer are of particular concern to the Agency, in view of: 34 (a) The importance of the redevelopment of the Property to the general welfare of the community; and (b) The fact that a Transfer as defined in Section 7.1 above is for practical purposes a transfer or disposition of the Property. It is because of the qualifications and identity of the Developer that the Agency is entering into this Agreement with the Developer and that Transfers are permitted only as provided in this Agreement. Section 7.3 Transfers Prohibited. Except as provided in Sections 7.5 and 7.6 below, until the issuance of an Estoppel Certificate of Completion for a given Post-Map Parcel (or the entire Property, if the Developer has not theretofore caused a subdivision of the Property), the Developer shall not make or create any Transfer with respect to that Post- Map Parcel (or the entire Property, as applicable), either voluntarily orby operation of law, without the prior approval of the Agency, which maybe granted or denied in the Agency's sole discretion. Any Transfer made in contravention of this Section 7.3 shall be void and shall be deemed to be a Developer Event of Default upon expiration of the notice and cure period provided in Section 9.4(b) without cure of such prohibited Transfer, whether or not the Developer knew of or participated in such Transfer. Section 7.4 I~ntitv of Developer. The Developer represents as follows: (a) the DevelOPer is a duly existing limited liability company in good standing and qualified to do business in the State of California; (b) the only members in the .Developer are Howard J. White III and Dick Thompson; and (c) the Developer has not made or created any Transfer, either voluntarily or by operation of law. The representation set forth in subparagraph (b) above is true as of the date of execution of this Agreement, with the understanding of the Parties that Transfers of ownership interest in the Developer may take place following execution of this Agreement in the manner permitted in Sections 7.5 and 7.6. Section 7.5 permitted Tran-fers Without Aaencv AoDroval. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 7.3, a Transfer described in any one of the following subsections shall be permitted without further Agency approval: 35 (a) Any Transfer of a Security Financing Interest (which by definition is security for a loan approved by the Agency as an Approved Development Loan); (b) Any Transfer directly resulting from the foreclosure of an instrument creating a Security Financing Interest, the granting of a deed in lieu of foreclosure, or as otherwise permitted under Article 8, subject to Section 7.7; (c) If the holder of a Security Financing Interest acquires fee title to the Property pursuant to enforcement rights associated with the Security Financing Interest (as by foreclosure or deed in lieu of foreclosure), then one (1) subsequent Transfer, subject to Section 7.7; (d) Any Transfer solely and directly resulting from the death or incapacity of an individual; (e) So long as the original Developer continues to be the Developer, any Transfer of an ownership interest in the Developer to a person not listed in Section 7.4, but only so long as either: (1) following such Transfer, any one or combination of the persons listed in Section 7.4 continues to own at least fifty-one percent (51%) of the beneficial ownership interests in the Developer and continues to retain the power of management and control of the Developer; or (2) following such Transfer, any one or a combination of the persons listed in Section 7.4 continues to retain the power of management and control of the Developer and, in the Agency's reasonable determination, will continue to devote the management expertise necessary to perform the Developer's obligations under this Agreement; (f) Any lease of space in the Development to a user, so long as the leasehold transfer will not take effect until completion of construction of the applicable leased space; (g) Any Transfer for the purpose of effectuating a joint venture so long as following such Transfer the Developer retains the power of management and control of such entity (except that unless anyone or a combination of the persons listed in Section 7.4 owns at least fifty-one percent (51%) of the beneficial ownership interests in the transferee, the Agency must approve the Transfer in its reasonable discretion); 36 (h) Any Transfer with respect to a given Post-Map Parcel (or with respect to the entire Property, if the Developer has not theretofore caused a subdivision of the Property) following the Agency's issuance of an Estoppel Certificate of Completion for that Post-Map Parcel (or the entire Property, as applicable). With respect to a space lease described in subparagraph (f) above, the Parties understand and.agree that a space lease may be executed prior to the Closing or prior to completion of construction of the applicable Improvement provided that: (1) the effectiveness of any occupancy rights granted to a prospective tenant are conditioned upon the occurrence of the Closing and/or the completion of construction, as applicable; (2) the space lease clearly provides that the Agency shall, under no circumstance, have any obligation or liability to the prospective tenant under the space lease; and (3) the Developer shall indemnify, defend, and hold the Agency harmless, in the manner provided in Section 5.10, against any claim brought by a prospective tenant under a space lease. 7.6 permitted Transfers With Prior Aae~cv ADDroval in Its Sole Discretion. Except as permitted under Section 7.5, any Transfer prior to the Agency's issuance of an Estoppel Certificate of Completion for a given Post-Map Parcel (or the entire Property, if the Developer has not theretofore caused a subdivision of the Property) shall be permitted only after (a) the Agency, in its sole discretion, has delivered to the Developer its prior written approval of such Transfer, and (b) the transferee has assumed the Developer's obligations under this Agreement with respect to that Post-Map Parcel (or the entire Property, as applicable) by signing this Agreement or such other reasonable documentation as the Agency may require. 7.7 Effectuation of Certa4n Permitted Transfers. Immediately upon a transferee described in Sections 7.5(b) or (c) obtaining ownership of the Property for a given Post-Map Parcel, as applicable, such transferee shall, as a condition of the effectiveness of the Transfer, assume the Developer's obligations under this Agreement with respect to the Property or the given Post-Map Parcel, as applicable, arising from and after the date of the assumption by signing this Agreement or such other reasonable documentation as the Agency may require. The requirements of the first paragraph of this Section 7.7 shall not apply to a Transfer consisting of execution of a space lease. Following issuance of an Estoppel Certificate of Completion for a given Post-Map Parcel (or the entire Property, 37 if the Developer has not theretofore caused a subdivision of the Property), a transferee of that Post-Map Parcel (or the entire Property, as applicable) shall have no obligations to the Agency other than the obligations set forth in Article 6 of this Agreement and the Grant Deed. ARTICLE 8. SECURITY FINANCING AND RIGHTS OF HOLDERS 8.1 Encumbrances Only for Development Purposes. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, only the following encumbrances are permitted to be placed upon the Property: (a) Security Financing Interests (which by definition must secure Approved Development Loans); (b) Other documents required in connection with Approved Development Loans; (c) Construction liens for the benefit of laborers or suppliers, so long as they are in good faith contested or discharged promptly; (d) Vendor liens for the benefit of suppliers of fixtures typically contained in improvements similar to the Improvements, or as approved by the Agency (in its reasonable discretion) and by all holders of Security Financing Interests; and (e) After Agency issuance of an Estoppel Certificate of Completion for a given Post-Map Parcel (or the entire Property, if the Developer has not theretofore caused a subdivision of the Property), any other encumbrance with respect to that Post-Map Parcel (or the entire Property, as applicable). 8.2 Holder Not 0bliaated to Construct. The holder of any Security Financing Interest authorized by this Agreement is not obligated to construct or complete any improvements ~r to guarantee such construction or completion. However, nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to permit or authorize any such holder to devote the Property or any portion thereof to any uses, or to construct any improvements thereon, other than those uses or improvements provided for or authorized by this Agreement. 38 8.3 Notice of Defaul~ and Right to Cure. (a) Whenever, following Closing, the Agency delivers any notice of default or demand to the Developer, the Agency shall at the same time deliver to each holder of record of any permitted Security Financing Interest a copy of such notice or demand. Each such holder shall (insofar as the rights of the Agency are concerned) have the right (but not the obligation) to (1) cure the default within thirty (30) days after the receipt of the notice or such longer period as may reasonably be necessary to cure so long as (A) the holder commences to cure within thirty (30) days and diligently prosecutes the cure to completion, or (B) the holder has commenced, within such thirty (30) clay period, appropriate proceedings, under the instrument creating its Security Financing Interest, to obtain possession (through foreclosure or appointment of a receiver) of the Property, and diligently prosecutes such proceedings and proceeds to cure after obtaining possession any default under this Agreement that can reasonably be cured, and (2) add the cost thereof to the security interest debt and the lien on its security interest. Upon written request, the Agency shall grant a reasonable extension of time to any holder of a Security Financing Interest, to cure a default or breach of the Developer, provided, however, that in no event shall any extension of time be granted for more than one hundred and fifty (150) days to cure such breach or default. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be deemed to permit or authorize such holder to undertake or continue the construction or completion of the Improvements (beyond the extent necessary to conserve or protect such improvements or construction already made) without first having expressly assumed %n writing the Developer's obligations relating to such improvements under this Agreement. The holder in that event must agree to complete, in the manner provided in this Agreement, subject to such extensions of time to complete as are necessary, taking into account delays resulting from the Developer's default, the Improvement to which the lien or title of such holder relates. Any such holder properly completing such improvements pursuant to this paragraph shall assume all rights and obligations of the Developer under this Agreement and be entitled, upon written request made to the Agency, to an Estoppel Certificate of Completion from the Agency. (b) Whenever the Developer delivers any notice of default or demand to the Agency, the Developer shall at the same time deliver to each holder of record of any permitted Security Financing Interest a copy of such notice or demand. 8.4 Failure Qf Holder to Complete Improvements. In any case where, following Closing, six (6) months after default by the Developer in completion of construction of the 39 Improvements under this Agreement, the holder of any permitted security Financing Interest, having first exercised its option to construct, has not proceeded diligently with construction, the Agency shall be afforded those rights against such holder that it would otherwise have against the Developer under this Agreement; provided, however, that the holder of a Security Financing Interest is not liable for a default committed by the Developer prior to the holder assuming the Developer's obligations. 8.5 Rioht of Aaencv to Cure. In the event of a default or breach by the Developer of a permitted Security Financing Interest before the completion of the applicable Improvements, and if the holder thereof has not exercised its option to complete the applicable Improvements, the Agency upon ten (10) days written notice to the Developer may cure the default, prior to the completion of any foreclosure. In such event the Agency shall be entitled to reimbursement from the Developer of all costs and expenses incurred by the Agency in curing the default. The Agency shall also be entitled to a lien upon the applicable Post-Map Parcel (or upon the entire Property, if the Developer has not therefore caused a subdivision of the Property) to the extent of such costs and disbursements. Such lien shall be subordinate to any permitted Security Financing Interest, and the Agency shall execute from time to time any documentation reasonably requested by the Developer to effect such subordination. 8.6 Right of A~encv to Satisfy Other Liens. If, following Closing, and continuing until the applicable Improvements have been completed, a lien or encumbrance securing indebtedness or the payment of money, and not constituting a Security Financing Interest, is placed against the Property or any Post-Map Parcel, and if, after a reasonable time during which the Developer has had an opportunity to challenge, cure, or satisfy any such liens or encumbrances, the A~ency shall have the right, upon thirty (30) days' written notice to the Developer, to satisfy any such lien or encumbrances; provided, however, that nothing in this Agreement shall require the Developer to pay or make provision for the payment of, or permit the Agency to pay, any tax, assessment, lien or charge so long as the Developer in good faith shall contest the validity or amount thereof and so long as such delay in payment shall not result in forfeiture or sale of the Property or any Post-Map Parcel. 40 8.7 Holder to be Notified. In each instrument creating or granting a Security Financing Interest, the Developer shall either insert each term of this Article 8 or obtain the acknowledgment of each term of this Article 8 by the holder of the Security Financing Interest. ARTICLE 9. RF24EDIES Section 9.1 ADDlication of Remedies. This Article 9 shall govern the Parties' remedies for breach or failure under this Agreement. Section 9.2 No Fault of Parties. (a) The following events constitute a basis for the Developer or the Agency to te~,,,inate this Agreement without the fault of the other: (1) The Developer, despite good faith efforts, is unable to obtain the Planning Approvals within the time and in the manner specified in Section 2.3, in which case either Party may terminate this Agreement without the fault of the other. (2) The results of any referendum, or the final, non- appealable outcome of a lawsuit, render the Development as contemplated by this Agreement infeasible, and there is no Developer Event of Default or Agency Event of Default, in which case either Party may terminate this Agreement without the fault of the other. (3) .There is an Unanticipated Condition of Approval that will materially adversely affect the Development's schedule or cost, and the Parties cannot agree to an allocation of the costs of such Unanticipated Condition of Approval following the good faith negotiations specified in Section 2.3(b), and the Developer exercises its right to terminate pursuant to and in the manner specified in Section 2.3(b). (4) There is a Cristich Lane Condition of Approval, and the Agency does not commit to satisfying the Cristich Lane Condition of Approval to the extent and by the deadline specified in Section 2.3(c), and the Developer exercises its right to terminate pursuant to and in the manner specified in Section 2.3 (c) . 41 (5) Utilities that are necessary for the Development are unavailable, and the Developer exercises its right to terminate pursuant to and in the manner specified in Section 2.4. (6) 'Title insurance meeting the requirements of Section 2.6 is unavailable, and the Developer exercises its right to terminate pursuant to and in the manner specified in Section 2.5. (7) There is a judicial challenge or referendum ballot measure, and the Parties, despite good faith negotiations, cannot agree on a course of continuing with the development of the Development, and there is no Developer Event of Default or Agency Event of Default, and either Party exercises its right to terminate pursuant to and in the manner specified in Sections 4.2(b) or 10.8(b). (8) The Planning Approvals do not include approval of a Developer-requested vesting tentative map, or the Planning Approvals do not provide for Developer-requested phasing, and there is no Developer Event of Default, and the Developer exercises its right to terminate pursuant to and in the manner specified in Section 2.3(b) (2). (b) Upon the happening of an event described in Section 9.2(a), and at the election of any Party with a corresponding right to terminate this Agreement, this Agreement may be terminated by written notice to the other Party. (c) Upon a termination pursuant to this Section 9.2, any costs incurred by a Party in connection with this Agreement and the Development shall be completely borne by such Party and neither Party shall have any rights against or liability to the other, except with respect to return of the Deposit to the extent provided in Section 2.2(d), payment by the Agency to the Developer of the sum of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) if and to the extent provided in Section 4.2(b) or 10.8(b), the delivery of plans and documents as set forth in Section 9.5, and those provisions of this Agreement that recite that they survive termination of this Agreement. Section 9.3 Fault of Aaencv. (a) Except as to events constituting a basis for termination under Section 9.2, each of the following events, if uncured after expiration of the applicable cure period, shall constitute an "Agency Event of Default": 42 (1) Except as provided in Section 9.2, the Agency without good cause fails to convey the Property within the time and in the manner specified in Article 4, and the Developer is otherwise entitled to such conveyance. (2) The Agency breaches any other material provision of this Agreement. (b) Upon the happening of an event described in Section 9.3(a), the Developer shall first notify'the Agency in writing of its purported breach or failure, and the Agency shall have thirty (30) days from receipt of such notice to cure such breach or failure, or such longer period as may be reasonably necessary to cure such breach so long as the Agency commences to cure within such thirty (30) days and diligently prosecutes the cure to completion. If the Agency does not cure within such period, then the event shall constitute an "Agency Event of Default" and the Developer shall be entitled to any rights afforded it in law or in equity (including specific performance), and if the Closing has not yet occurred then the Deposit shall be returned to the Developer. Section 9.4 Fault of Developer. (a) Except as to events constituting a basis for termination under Section 9.2, each of the following events, if uncured after expiration of the applicable cure period, shall constitute a "Developer Event of Default": (1) Any condition in Article 2 that is a covenant of the Developer is not satisfied within the times and in the manner specified in Article 2. (2) The Developer does not attempt diligently and in good faith to cause satisfaction of all conditions in Article 2 that are covenants of the Developer, in accordance with the conditions and limitations of Article 2. (3) Following satisfaction of the conditions set forth in Article 2 for proceeding with the Closing, and in the absence of any Developer termination as permitted under Section 9.2, the Developer refuses for any reason (including, but not limited to, lack of funds) to pay the purchase price for the Property to the Agency and accept conveyance from the Agency of the Property within the time and in the manner (and subject to the conditions and limitations) specified in Article 4. (4) Following the Closing, the Developer fails to construct the Improvements in the manner and by the deadlines 43 (including deadlines for both commencement and completion of construction) set forth in Article 5. (5) The Developer attempts or completes a Transfer except as permitted under Article 7. (6) The Developer breaches any other material provision of this Agreement. b) U on the happening of any event described in Se~t%on . ~ -- P- -~-~ ~--~ notify the Developer in wr~t~ng o~ s u orted breach or failure, and the Developer shall have ~t p rp . to cure such breach ,~_~.. ~n% ~avs from recexpt of such notice .. ~"~1~ ~r=such longer period as may be reasonably necessary ~ cure such b~each so long as the Developer commences to cure within such thirty (30) days and diligently prosecutes the cure to completion. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the cure period shall be limited to a maximum of fifteen (15) days after Agency notice for any breach or failure under S~ct%on 2.3 ~a).. If.~he r does not cure within the specified period, t~en =ne DeveloP? .......... ,~ .... ~er Event of Default" and the event s ........ =-= -~ -~ ~- followina rxghts and Agency snail De azzoru=u ~ ~ remedies: (1) Prior to the Closina. Prior to the Closing,.the Agency's sole and exClusive remedies shall be: (A) terminatxng in ~t~n this entire Agreement; (B) deduction or.retention of the wr' ' g and/or (C) obtazning plans, data, Deposit, as liquidated damages; and approvals pursuant to Section 9.5 (and seeking specific performance to obtain such items). '2) Followina the Closina. F?lloving ~? Cl?~%~g, the - , 2--~=~ -~ ~e. ~A) terminatxng xnwr~=xng =n~. Agency s _ ,~, ........ ~,, ~ action for damages; (c~ obtainln plans, uaua, ~u -mmv-7-? = .... n seeking ~pecific performance of this Agreement, and/or (E) a y other remedy permitted by law. Section 9.5 ~lans. Data a~d ADDrovals. ............ ~ 4~ terminated pursuant to Section 9.2 or 9.4, then the Developer shall promptly deliver to the %gency to the extent actually completed, and without representation or warranty, copies of all plans and specifications.for the .. Development, all permits and approvals.obta~neu xn ~nnec~xon with the Development, and all applicatxons zor perms=s an approvals. 44 Section 9.6 ~. Upon termination of this Agreement under this Article 9, the following provisions of this Agreement shall survive: the waiver in Section 4.4; and the indemnification obligations in Sections 4.6, 5.10, and 5.11. This Section 9.6 exists for reference purposes only,.and does not alter the scope or nature of the surviving provisions. Section 9.7 NQ ~ross-Default. Following issuance of an Estoppel Certificate of Completion with respect to a Post-Map Parcel, if applicable, there shall be no Developer Event of Default with respect to such Post-Map Parcel solely as a result of an act or omission by the Developer (whether the original Developer or its successors or assigns) on or with respect to a portion of the Property other than such Post-Map Parcel. ARTICLE 10. GENERAL PROVISIONS Section 10.1 Notices. Demands and Communications. Formal notices, demands, and communications among the Parties shall be sufficiently given if, and shall not be deemed given unless, secured personally, or dispatched by certified mail, return receipt requested, or by facsimile transmission or reputable overnight delivery service with a receipt showing date of delivery, to the principal offices of the Parties as follows: Agency: City of Campbell Redevelopment Agency 170 North first Street Campbell, California 95008 Attention: Redevelopment Manager Developer: WTA Campbell Technology Park LLC 900 Welch Road, Suite 10 Palo Alto, CA 94304 Attention: Howard J. White III with a copy to: Rosenblum, Parish & Isaacs 160 W. Santa Clara Street, 15th Floor San Jose, CA 95113 Attention: Myron Brody Such written notices, demands and communications may be sent in the same manner to such other addresses as the affected Party may from time to time designate by mail as provided in this Section 10.1. Delivery shall be deemed to have occurred at the time indicated on the receipt for delivery or refusal of delivery. 45 Section 10.2 N0n-Liabilitv of Officials. Employees and Aaents. No member, official, employee or agent of the Agency or the City shall be personally liable to the Developer, or any successor in interest, in the event of an Agency Event of Default. The personal liability or non-liability of any member of WTA LLC, the initial Developer, in the event of a Developer Event of Default, shall be as provided by applicable laws concerning limited liability companies. Section 10.3 Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence in this Agreement. Section 10.4 Inspection of Books and Records. Prior to the issuance of an Estoppel Certificate of Completion for a given Post-Map Parcel (or for the entire Property, if the Developer has not theretofore caused the subdivision of the Property), the Agency shall have the right at all reasonable times to inspect and copy the books, records and all other documentation of the Developer pertaining to its obligations under this Agreement with respect to that Post-Map Parcel (or the entire Property, as applicable). The Agency shall, to the maximum extent permitted by law, maintain such books, records and other documentation of the Developer on a confidential basis. The Developer shall have the right at all reasonable times to inspect and copy the books, records and all other documentation of the Agency pertaining to its obligations under this Agreement. Section 10.5 Title of Parts and Sections. Any titles of the sections or subsections of this Agreement are inserted for convenience of reference only and shall be disregarded in interpreting any of its provisions. Section 10.6 Applicable Law. This Agreement shall be interpreted under the laws of the State of California. Section 10.7 Severabilitv. 46 If any term of this Agreement is held in a final disposition by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, then the remaining terms shall continue in full force unless the rights and obligations of the Parties have been materially altered by such holding of invalidity. Section 10.8 Le~al Actions. (a) Actions By The Parties. If any legal action is commenced by a Party to interpret or to enforce the terms of this Agreement or to collect damages as a result of any breach of this Agreement, then the Party prevailing in any such action shall be entitled to recover against the Party not prevailing all reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in such action (and any subsequent action or proceeding to enforce any judgment entered pursuant to an action on this Agreement) (b) Third Party Actions. In the event legal action is commenced by a third party or parties, the effect of which is to directly or indirectly challenge or compromise the enforceability, validity, or legality of this Agreement, the power of the Agency to enter into this Agreement or perform its obligations hereunder, and/or the use of the EIR as the CEQA document for approval of this Agreement, either the Agency or the Developer may (but shall have no obligation to) defend such action. Upon commencement of any such action, the Par~ies shall, for a period of one hundred eighty (180) days (or such longer period as the Parties may agree upon in writing), consider and negotiate in diligent good faith about a mutually acceptable method of defending such action. If, within such negotiating period, the Parties reach agreement regarding a method of defending such action, the Parties shall memorialize such agreement in an amendment to this Agreement or in another mutually acceptable document, which amendment or other document may include, among other matters, any agreed-upon extensions of time for performance under this Agreement. Within such negotiating period and prior to execution and delivery of any such amendment, each of the Parties may suspend any further performance under this Agreement pending execution and delivery of such amendment. If the Parties have not executed and delivered an amendment within such negotiating period, either Party may terminate this Agreement. If the Agency terminates this Agreement prior to an event having occurred as described in Section 9.2(a)(2) of this Agreement, then in addition to a return of the Deposit, the Agency shall refund to the Developer Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000), which represents the initial deposit by the Developer used to prepare the EIRunder the exclusive negotiating rights agreement under which the Parties negotiated this Agreement. 47 Section 10.9 ~indinq UPOn Successors. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs, administrators, executors, successors in interest, and assigns of each of the Parties. However, there shall be no Transfer by the Developer except as permitted in Article 7. Any reference in this Agreement to a specifically named Party shall be deemed to apply to any successor, heir, administrator, executor, successor, or assign of such Party who has acquired an interest in compliance with the terms of this Agreement or under law. Section 10.10 parties Not Co-Venturers. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to or does establish the Parties as partners, co-venturers, or principal and agent with one another. Section 10.11 prQvisions Not Merq~d with Grant Deed. None of the provisions of this Agreement shall be merged by the Grant Deed or any other instrument transferring title to any portion of the Property, and neither the Grant Deed nor any other instrument transferring title to any portion of the Property shall affect this Agreement. Section 10.12 Entire Understandina of the Parties. This Agreement (including the exhibits to this Agreement) constitutes the entire understanding and agreement of the Parties with respect to the conveyance of the Property and the development of the Development. Section 10.13 (a) Whenever this Agreement calls for Agency approval, consent, or waiver, the written approval, consent, or waiver of the Agency Executive Director shall constitute the approval, consent, or waiver of the Agency, without further authorization required from the Agency Board. The Agency hereby authorizes the Agency's Executive Director to deliver such approvals or consents as are required by this Agreement, or to waive requirements under this Agreement, on behalf of the Agency. (b) All approvals under this Agreement shall be subject to a reasonableness standard, except where a sole discretion standard is specifically provided. 48 (c) The Developer acknowledges that execution of this Agreement in no way limits the discretion of the City or any other government agency in the permit and approval process. (d) Whenever the approval of a Party will be deemed to be given as a result of a Party's failure to respond within a period of time pursuant to a provision of this Agreement, the approval shall be deemed to be given only if the item submitted for approval is accompanied by a written request for approval containing the following message (with t~e blanks filled in as appropriate) at the top of the written request: THIS IS A REQUEST FOR AN IMPORTANT APPROVAL. UNDER THE DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMONG THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCYANDWTALLC, THE APPROVALWILL AUTOMATICALLY BE DEEMED GIVEN UNLESS YOU DELIVER WRITTEN DISAPPROVAL WITHIN DAYS PURSUANT TO SECTION OF THE DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. Section 10.14 ~. The Parties can amend this Agreement only bymeans of a writing signed by all Parties. Section 10.15 Multiple Oriainals: Counterparts. This Agreement maybe executed in multiple originals, each of which is deemed to be an original, and may be signed in counterparts. Section 10.16 Documents for Benefit of Lenders and Tenants. (a) The Agency shall execute and deliver any document reasonably required by a lender or tenant in connection with an encumbrance or lease occurring after issuance of an Estoppel Certificate of Completion for a given Post-Map Parcel (or the entire Property, if the Developer has not theretofore caused a subdivision of the Property) to evidence or perfect termination of this Agreement with respect to that Post-Map Parcel (or the entire Property, as applicable), subject to the continuing effectiveness of the covenants contained in Article 6 of this Agreement and the Grant Deed. (b) The Agency shall comply with reasonable Developer requests from time to time for an estoppel certificate to a lender or tenant for the purpose of confirming whether this Agreement continues in full force, whether this Agreement has' been modified, whether there is any Developer Event of Default under this Agreement (and if so, the nature of the Developer Event of Default), and similar matters. 49 Section 10.17 Parcel Seven. The Parties contemplate that the portion of the Property described in Exhibit A as Parcel Seven of Tract A ("Parcel Seven") will not be improved with the Improvements, but will instead be used by the Developer as a construction staging area. The Developer has no duty to construct any Improvements on Parcel Seven or to seek any approvals for development of Parcel Seven. However, any development of Parcel Seven 'shall be subject to Article 6 of this Agreement. Following issuance of any Estoppel Certificate of Completion with respect to a Post-Map Parcel (or the entire Property, if applicable), then the Developer may undertake a Transfer of Parcel Seven without any further Agency approval under Article 7. The first Estoppel Certificate of Completion as to any portion of the Property shall contain provisions sufficient to extinguish of record as to Parcel 7, the obligations under this Agreement and paragraph numbered I of the Grant Deed. Section 10.18 Force Maie~r~. For the purposes of this Agreement, "Force Majeure" shall mean delays with respect to the construction and development of the Improvements resulting from:. (a) acts of God, earthquakes, strikes, lockouts, boycotts, casualties, discontinuance of any utility or other service required for construction or development of the Improvements, moratoriums, governmental agencies and unusually severe weather, (b) the lack of availability or shortage of materials used in the construction or development of the Improvements, (c) any changes required by the fire department, building and/or planning department, building inspectors or any other agency having jurisdiction over the Improvements, or (d) any other matters beyond the reasonable control of the Developer (but not including an absence of financing). 5O AS OF THE DATE FIRST WRITTEN ABOVE, the Parties evidence their agreement to the terms of this Agreement by signing below: Attest: Agency Secretary Approved As To Form: By: Special Counsel To The Agency AGENCY CITY OF CAMPBELL REDEVEIX>PMENT AGENCY, a public body corporate and politic By: ~/~/ Its: DEVELOPER WTACAMPBELL TECHNOLOGY PARK LLC, 2,..____ornia~limited liability a 51 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SP 91909 All that real property situate in the City of Campbell, County of Santa Clara, State of California, described as follows: TRACT "A": PARCEL ONE:I BegirminE at the Southwest corner of the Southeast'l/& of the Northwest 1/~ of Section 35, Townhip 7 South, Range I Hest; runnin& thence alone the line between lands formerly of Hrs. ~illett and Hrs. O. C. ~ells, S. 89 deE. $6' E. 19.85 chains to a 6" x 6" post marked V.$; thence leavine the line between ~aid lands and running N. 6 deG. 25' E. ll.&$ chains and N, 7 dez. 25' E. 3.36 chains to a stake marked ~.S standir~ in the line between Lots 5 and 6, as shoum on the Hap of Partition in the Suit of E. ~illett, plaintiff vs. Lottie Hiller, et al, defendant, in the Superior Court of Santa Clara Countyl thence alone the line between said lots, ~. &.SO chains to the Southwest corner of said Lot $ and N. 3 1/~ deE. E. 4.18 chains to the Northwest corner of said Lot 5, in the South line of Lot i of said Partition; thence alone the line belween said Lots i and 6 of said Partition ~. 1.97 chains to stake E.A. 2 standing at the Southwest corner of said Lot & in the center of the Los Gatos Creek and in the line between lands lormerly of Hrs. ~. ~. ~ennedy and Hrs. E. Hillett; thence alon~ the line between said lands, S. 37 de~o 17' ~. 20.~8 chains and S. 2.60 chains to the point of beGinnir~; and heine a part of Lot 6 as set off to Hrs. Elizabeth ~illett in the above mentioned Partition and a part of the Southeast l/i of the Northwest l/& of a part of the Southwest l/l of the Northeast 1/~ of Section 15, Township ? South, Ranee 1 ~est, H.D.H. Excepting therefrom that certain parcel of land described in the deed from Frank B. BillinGS, et ux, to Frederic G. ~ilson, dated September 5, 1903, recorded September 11, 1903 in Book ~68 of Deeds, at pa~e 517; as follows: BelinninE at the Southwest corner of Lot 5 of the ~illett Partition as set off by order of the Superior Court in the Partition Suit of i. ~illett, vs. Lottie ~illett, et al, and runnir~ thence ~est about &78 feet to the Hesterly boundary of Lot 6 of said partition; thence Northeasterly about 300 feet to the Northwest corner of said Lot 6; thence E. a.97 chains to the Northwest corner of said Lot 5; lhence Southerly alonl the ~esterly boundary of said Lot 5, &.18 chains to the point of beginninel and beinz the Northerly L of the aforesaid Lot 6, which was conveyed by B. T. Campen, to Frank B. Billings by deed dated December 5, 1~88 and recorded in Book 11~ of Deeds, at pa~e Also exceptinE therefrom all that portion thereof lyinE Northwesterly of the Southeasterly line of Parcel One, as ~ranted in the Deed from Ellen $corsur, a ~idow, as my separate property to State of California for freeway purposes, dated Hay ~$, 1~56 and recorded June ~, 1956 in Book 353? Official lecords, pa~e a78. ~E NOTE BUT DO NOT INSURE THE FOLLOWING ~~ i right of way 30 feet wide commencing at the intersection of the North line of Lot 6 and the Los Gatos Road (said Lot ~ heine a part of the land sho~m on a Map of partition the suit of E. Willett, plaintiff, vs. Lottee Willett, et al, defendant in the Superior Court of Santa Clara as surveyed by Herrmann Exhibit A-1 of 13 ~ - Page 2 SP 91909 Bros.) thence Vest on the Sou~h side of the North line of said Lot 6 to the land sold to the second party by grantor herein under deed dated September 1, 1888, recorded in Records of Santa Clara County, as granted in the deed from Elizabeth A. Willett, to B. T. Ca.pen, dated September 6, 1888 recorded September 6, 1888 in Book 108 of Deeds, at page 362. iPARCEL THREE:': All the North 10 acres of the East 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 35 ~n Township 7 South, Range 1 Vest, bounded as follows: Beginning in the center of said Section 35, and running Vest on the 1/4 line thereof (the sa~e being the South line of land of Frank B. Billings) 80 rods; thence at right angles S. 20 rods; thence at right angles g. 80 rods to the quarter line of said Section 35; thence North along said one quarter line 20 rods to the point of beginning. Excepting therefrom all that portion thereof lying Northwesterly of the Southeasterly line of Parcel One, as granted in the deed from Ellen Scorsur, a uid~o, as my separate property, to State of California, for freeway purposes, dated Hay 25, 1956 and recorded June 29, 1956 in Book 3537 Official Records, page 378. Also excepting therefrom that portion described in the deed from Vinchester Drive-In Theatre, Inc., to Santa Clara County Flood Control and Pater D/strict, State of California, recorded April 10, ]970 in Book 8885, page 5gl, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Southeasterly corner of said lands, said point being also the Northeasterly corner of :hat certain parcel of land conveyed to the Santa Clara Valley ~ater Conservation District by H. T. Petersen, et tx. in deed recorded in Book 4128 Official Records, at page 429, in the off,ce of the Recorder, County of Santa Clara, State of California; thence along the Northerly line of said District as described in said deed ~. 89 deg. 25' V. 20.00 feet to the true po/n: of beginning; thence continuing along said Northerly line N. 89 deg. 25' V. 121.00 feet; thence leaving said line N. 62 deg. 21' 09" E. 92.71 feet; thence along a curve to the right from a tangent which bears S. 82 deg. 10' 04" E. with a radius of 45.00 feet, through a central angle of 81 deg. 45' 04" for an arc distance of 64.21 feet to the true point of beginning. Bight of way for roadway 20 feet u/de running South along the 114 l~ne of said Section 35 from :he Southeast corner of Parcel Three above described to a roadway o~rned by the party of the first part hereinafter described and extending Easterly to the San Jose and Los Ga:os Road, together ~r/:h :he right of oay for ingress and egress over said private roadway to the said San Jose and Los Gatos Road, as granted in the deed from George A. O'hipple, et ux, part of the first part, to Frank B. Billings, dated September 15, 1908, recorded September 23, 1908 in Book 337 of Deeds, at page 138. IP. ARCEL, riVE: I Exhibit A-2 of 13 Page 3 SP 91909 Beginning at a point in the NorZhwesterly line of McGlincey Road 60 feet wide, as said road was established by deed from Kat~ Laptalo, et al, to County of Santa Clara, dated August 25, 1967 and recorded Oc£ober 14, 1968 in ~ook 1684 of Official Records, at page 75, at the point of intersection of said Northwesterly line with the quarter section line running Northerly and Southerly through the center of Section 35, Township ? South, Range 1 Vest, M.D.B. & N.; thence from said point of beginning ~lonz the Northwesterly line of NcGlincey Road N. 56 deg. $5' E. 29.70 feet; thence leaving said Northwesterly line and running N. 0 deg. 25' ~. 160.37 feet; thence parallel vith the said Northwesterly line of HcGlincey Road S. 56 deg. 55' W. 29.70 feet; thence S. 0 deg. 25' E. 160.37 feet to the point of beginning, and being a part of Section 35, Township 7 South, Range 1 Vest H.D.B. Excepting there/ton the Southerly 10 feet thereof, as conveyed to the City of Campbell, a municipal corporation by Deed from Forman Development Conpany, a partnership, recorded July 29, 1964 in Book 6600 page 557 of Official Records. ' PARCEL SIX: An easement for the purpose of ingress and egress said easement being more particularly described as Being a portion of the lands of Santa Clara County Flood Control and rater ~istrict as described in the deed recorded in Book 6120 of Official Records. at page 683, et seq., in the office of lhe Recorder, County of Santa Clara State of Califoraia, to wit: ' Beginning at the most Southerly corner of said lands as described in said deed; thence along the Yesterly line thereof N. 00 deg. 25' W. 269.63 feet; thence leaving said line along a curve to the right from a tangent which bears $. ~4 deg. 10' 42" E. with a radius of 90.00 feet through a central angle of 43 deg. 65' 42" for an arc distance of 68.74 feet; thence S. O0 deg. 25' g. 191.35 feet to a point on the Southeasterly line of said lands as described in said deed; thence along said line S. 56 deg. 55' ~. 25.70 feet to the point of beginning. All of Lot ]6, as shown upon that certain Map entitled, Tract No. 3599 Vestchester Industrial Park, oh/ch Map was filed for record in the office of the Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California on March 25, 156~ in ~ook 175 of Maps, at page 47. Excepting therefrom the right to pump, take or otherwide extract water from the underground basin or strata in Santa Clara County with no surface rights to water involved as conveyed by Forman Development Company, a partnership, to San Jose Yater ~orks, a corporation, by deed dated April 30, 1964 and recorded May 5, 1964 in Book 6491 of Official Records, at page 278. Exhibit A-3 of 13 '~ - Page 4 'iRACT "B": SP 91909 Beginning at a point in the Easterly line of that certain parcel of land conveyed by Elmer' D. Koenig, et ux, to Kenneth B. Kandell, et ux, dated Nay 21, 19a8 and recorded Sune 8, 1918 in Book 1627 Official Eecords, pa~e 272, Santa Clara County Records, said Easterly line also being the 1/I section 1: running North and South through the center of Section 35. Townhip 7 South Range 1 ~est, H.D.M. distant thereon N. 0 deg. 25' U. 92.24 feet from intersection thereof with the North~sterly line of McOlincey.Lane as established by deed from Paul T. Calla~her, et al, to County of Santa .ara, da~ed t~gust 25, 1947 and recorded October 14, 1948 in Book 1684 Of Records, page 75, Santa Clara County Records; thence from said po: of beg/nm/nd continuing N. 0 deg. 25' W. along said Easterly liine feet to an iron pipe; thence leaving said Easterly line and running $. deg. 35' 270.00 feet to an iron pipe; thence S. 1 deg. 12' 40" E. 70. to the most Northerly comer of that certain parcel of land convey by Kenneth R. Randell, et ox, to Richard S. Barnes, a single man, by de~ February 19, 1949 and recorded March 1, 1949 in Book 1752 Official Re page 79, Manta Clara County Records; thence $. 87 deg. 28' 19" E. 269 feet to the point of beginning and being a portion of the Southwest 1/4 35, Township 7 South, Range 1 West, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian as shown upon that certain Map entitled. "Record of Survey of a of lands of Kenneth R. Randell," which Map was filed for record on Augu: 31 1954 in Book 51 of Maps, page 25. ' PARCEL TOO: ..~ Right of way for ingress · r . g ess and foRe, he installation and maintenance of ut/l/ties over a strip of land 25 feetv~n width, the Easterly line of which is the Easterly line of the parcel of l~ conveyed by Elmer D. Koenig, et ux, to Kenneth R. Randell, et ux, recorde~.~n June 8. 1948 in Book 1627 Official Records, page 272, Santa Clara Co~y Records, the Northerly terminus of said right of way being the $outherl~$~ine of the premises hereinabove described and the Southerly terminus be/~ the Northwesterly line of McClincey Lane, 40 feet wide. ~,~' PARCEL THREE: Beginning at a point ~.' the Northwesterly line of McGlincey Lane, 40 feet ~r/de, at the interse~ion thereof w/th the Northeasterly line of that certain parcel of land des~b~d in the deed from Kenneth R. Randell. et ux, to Richard $. Barnes~a simile man, dated February 19, 1949, recorded March 1, 1949 in Book 17,~Official Records, page 79, Santa Clara County Records- thence N. $6 ~. ~5' E. along said Northwesterly line of ~n~i ..... 79.50 feet ~/~'the intersection thereof with the i/4 North and ~uth through the center of Section 35, Township 7 South Range West, M.~. ~nd H.. and said point also being the Easterly line of that cerlai~arcel of land described in the deed from Elmer D. Koeni&, et ux, to Kenne~R. Randell. et ux, dated May 21. 1948. recorded June 8, 1948 in Book 1627~fficial Records, page 272, Santa Clara County Records- then Exhibit A-4 of 13 '~~'~' - Page 5 9190~ !....~ c~er o~ ~e ~ce~ so eescr~bed in the deed from Randel~ to ~a~e~; thence ~}uc~ ~ia~lo B~e.and Me[id~su~eyed in July 1954, by Edward 5. S~afford. ~p~ at page 25, Santa Clara ~~~~~nd lO.O0 fees in wifl~h alon~ ~he SouSherly ~.~ of She land C~r=~ ~f ~od of the Abr~amic Fai,h, , said lands are dms~ed in deed of r~ord in Book 3791, page 487, Official Records of Santa Clara~nty. ~rip of land lyi~ ~or~herly of ~he Northerly line of same exists, 40.00 feet ~ide. P.~R C .~.. FOUR Beginning at an iron pipe set in the Northwesterly line of McGlincey Lane, 40 feet wide, as established by geed to the County of Santa Clara, dated August 25. 1947, recorded October 14. 1948 in Book 1684 of Official Records. at page 75, Santa Clara County Records, distant thereon N. 56 deg. 55' I. 29.70 feet from the point of intersection of said line of HcGlincey Lane with the 1/4 section line running North and South through the center Section 35, Township 7 Sou:h, Range 1 West, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian; thence along said line of McGlincey Lane N. 56 deg. 55' E. 110.14 feet to a point at the most Southerly corner of that certain parcel of land described in the deed from Steve Laptalo, et al, to Odean Snowden, et tu(. dated July 25. 1952. recorded September 18, 1952 in Book 2490 of Official Records, at pare 105; thence along the Southwesterly line of said parcel of land so conveyed :o Snowden N. 33 deg. 05' W. 135 feet to a point at the Northwesterly corner thereof; thence parallel with said line of McGlincey Lane S. $6 deg. $5' W. 23.58 feet to a point; thence S. 0 deg. 25' g. 160.37 feet to the point of beginning and being a portion of said Section 35, Township 7 South, Range I West, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, and also being a portion of the premises shown upon the Map of Record of Survey filed for record May 10, 1950 in Book 27 of Maps, at page 14. Santa Clara County Records. Excepting therefrom the Southeasterly 10.00 feet thereof as granted in the deed from Albert M. Mandell, et ux, to the City of Campbell, a municipal corporation, recorded December 28, 1964 in Book 6784 of Official Records page 624. ' ARB No. 413-11-3. 83. 90 and 91; 413-49-]6. 30 and 32 Exhibit A-5 of 13 Z ~'.,. 'L :~ k : N .'~ · , :~ % ,.%7%. \ \ "; ,.~:. .~.. ~. ~1 , ...'[ % .. ~ ,% '%. ,~' '"' ' 4 ~ -, ~ · .~ .. .~' ;,,, -, .., Exhibit A-6 of 13 :hibit A-~ of~ Exhibit A-8 of 13 Exhi2i~A- 9 of 13 CS) 1J ('t Exhibit A-II of 13 A-12 of 13 of 13 206707 ~.-~ SCHEDULE B Zxceptions and Exclusions in the policy form designated o4 the face page of this Report would be as follows: year 1996-1997 a lien, but not y~t due or 1. Taxes for the fiscal payable. / 2. The lien of supplemenLal taxes, if any, assessed pursuant to provisions of Chapter 3.5 (co,~umencing with Section 75) of}the Revenue and Taxation Code of the State of California, and/or any additional taxcu which may be assessed for added improvements or changes of ownership, subsequent to March 1, 1975. 3. Said property has been declared Tax-Defaulted for non- delinquent taxes for the fiscal year 1994-1995. Addition~ 412-30-035-99. Amount to redeem by July 31, 1996 is $54.77. (Affects 4. Said property has been declared Tax-Defaulted for non. delinquent taxes for the fiscal year 1994-1995. Additioni 412-30-042-99. Amount to redeem by July 31, 1996 is $30.54. (Affects 5. Said property has been declared Tax-Defaulted for non- delinquent taxes for the fiscal year 1994-1995. Additionl 412-30-043-99. Amount to redeem by July 31, 1996 is $30.54. (Affects 6. An easement for the purpose shown below and rights as set forth in a document ~payment of 1 A_ON Parcel Six) 'payment of 1 APN Parcel Seven) .payment of 1 APN Parcel Five) :idental thereto Granted to: Purpose: Recorded: The San Jose Water Company, a Cdr (No representation is made as to ownership of said easement) water pipe line May 25, 1870 Book 18, Page 88, of Deeds. The exact location and ext~nt of said easement is not record. (Cont'd on next page) ~oration ~he present disclosed of Exhibit BI of 11 206707~A 7. An easement for the purpose shown below and rights as set forth in a document ~n?~ ental thereto Granted to: Purpose: Recorded: O. C. Wells, S. D. Ayers and H.H. (No representation is made as to o~n~r~h~p of ~ai~ easement) ditch, etc. January 8, 1882 Book I, Page 576, of M~cellaneou The exact location and extent of said easement is not r~cord. 8. An easement for the purpose shown below and rights am set forth in a document Granted to: Purpose- Recorded: Gilmore ~he present disclosed of :idental thereto Mrs. Wells, W. H. Gilmore and E. +. Duncan (No repre~ent~=ion.im m~= mm to Sh= pr~sunt ownership of said easement) ditch pu.rposes December 8, 1884 Book 76, Page 293 of Deeds. The exact location and extent of said easement is not record. 9. An easement for the purpose shown below and rights in~ as set forth in a document disclosed of :idental thereto Granted to- Purpose: Recorded' Affects: Fred E. Lester (No representation is made as to ownership of said easement) pipe line April 18, 1924 Book 82, Page 213, of Official Re Parcels ~ive and Six 10. An easement for the purpose shown below and rights as set forth in a document Granted ~. E. A. W~ll~tt Coa~, eC al (No representation is made as to ownership of said easement) (Cont'd on next page) :he present :ords. :idental thereto present Exhibit B2 of 11 I 206707~ Purpose: Recorded: right of way January 13, 1893 Book X. Page 34 of Miscellaneous The exact location and extent of said easement is not record. 11. An Agreement affecting said land, for the purposes st~ upon the terms, ¢ovenant~ and ¢onditiong referred to ther~ parties named herein Dated: Executed by: October 27, 1892 Gilmore T. Duncan, et al and R. W. Junuary 12, 1895 Book 1, Page 37, of Miscellaneous 12. An ~asement for the purpos~ shown b~low an~ rights as set forth in a document Granted to: Purpose: Recorded' Santa Clara Valley water Company, (No representation is made as to ownership of said easement) a ditch October 24, 1903 Book 270, Page 335, of Deeds. The exact location and extent of said easement is'not record. 13. An easement for the purpose shown below and rights.in, as set forth in a document · Granted to: Tamer I. Bohnett, et al (No representation is made as to ownership of said easement) Purpose: pipe line Recorded: April 14, 1915 Book 426, Page 584, of Deeds. THe exact location ~nd ~xtent of ~id ~~nt i~ no~ record. (Cont'd on next page) ecords. ~isclosed of ted herein, in, between the Thomas, et al Records. idental thercto a corporation he present disclosed of :idental'thereto :he present dis¢lo=cd of Exhibit B3 of 11 206707 I.~A 14. An easement for the purpose shown below and rights as set forth in a document inlide utal thereto 15. The fact that the owner~hip of ~aid land doe= not inc2 access to or from the highwaY contiguous thereto, such ri~ severed from said land by the document Recorded: June 29, 1956 Granted to: County of Santa Clara (No representation is made as to~he present Purpose: road purposes Recorded: October 14, 1948 Book 1684, Page 75, of Official R(cord$. Affects: Southerly portion of Parcel 5 u~e right= of hts having been Book 3537, Page 478, of Official ~ecords. 16. An easement for the purposes shown below and rights i~cidental thereto as shown or as offered for dedication on the recorded map Easement Purpose: Affects' Anchor easement Northerly 2 feet of t]~e Easterly and the Southerly 2 feet of the E feet of Parcel Six 17. Covenants, conditions and restrictions, with no expre: forfeiture, but omitting any covenant or restriction, if race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or origin, unless and only to the extent that said covenant under Chapter 42, Section 3607 of the United States Code, to handicap but does not discriminate against handicapped forth in the document Recorded' July 13, 1964 Book 6578, Page 232, of Official (Affects Parcel Six) 0 feet sterly 20 ~s words of thy, based on national a) is exempt or (b) relates persons, as set (ecords. Reference is made to said document for full particulars. Ea£d couonant~, conditinnm an~ restrictions provide t~at a violation thereof shall not defeat the lien of any mortgage or deed~of trust made in good faith and for value. (Cont'd on next pa~e) :xhibit B4 of 11 206707t 18. An Agreement to Construct Land Development Improvements, upon the terms, covenants and conditions therein imposed which sha~l be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the ~uccessors in interest, Executed by: County of Santa Clara. and Winchester Drive-In Theater, Inc. ~ Recorded: September 26, 1966 I Book 7516, page 632, of Official ~ecords. 19. An easement for the purpose shown below and rights incidental thereto as set forth in a document Granted to: Purpose: Recorded: County Sanitation District No. 4 County, a Public Corporation (NO r~pr~s~nt~ion is mad~ as to ownership of said easement) acquiring, constructing, completi recun~ructing, repairil~g, mainta~ operating sanitary sewers, togeth~ right of ingress and egress thereto October 18, 1966 Book 7538, Page 493, of Official Hecords. f Santa Clara he preeent nlng and with the Affects: Beginning at the most Easterly corner of that certain Survey for vincent Raney, a Map of which is filed in Book page 18, in the County Recorder's Office of said Santa Cl~ Record of 214 of Maps, at ~ra County; thence from said point of beginning, Southerly along the Zasterly boundary of said Record of Survey, South 7° 21' 02' West ~21.63 feet, South 6" 21' 02" West 459.18 feet; thence Westerly and leVYing sai'd Easterly boundary of said Record of Survey, ~orth 89" 49'118" West 798.95 feet; thence along the arc of a curve to the left whose t'~n§ent bears North 39" 30' 45' East'and having a radius of 2985 feet,f~:hrough a central angle of 02° 30' 45",.an arc distance of 130.89 ~et; thence ° South, South 0 10' 42" West 524.81 feet to a point in the fly boundary of said Record of Survey; thence Westerly along said Southerly boundary, North 89° 49' 18" West 10.22 feet; thence Northerly and l%aving sa~d Southerly boundary,' North 0" 10' 42' East 536.48 feet to ~ point on the Easterly right of way line of the State of California Rou~e No. 5 Freeway; thence Northerly along the Easterly right of w&y freeway, along the arc of a curve to the right, whose 37" 03' 50" East, having a radius of 3000 feet through (Cont'd on next page) o£ said lent bears North :entral angle of Exhibit B5 of 11 206707- A 02" 35' 04' an arc distance o ' ' · East 445.04 and North 7°.21. 02= East 219.87 feet to a point on the Northerly ~oundary of said aecord of Survey~ thence Easterly along said Northerly boundary, South 89" 50' 16= East 15.12 feet to ~.he point of beginning. (Affects Parcels One and Two) 20. An easement for the purpose shown below and rights incidental thereto as set forth in a document Granted to: ! Pacific Gas and Electric Company,! a California corporation ownership of said easement) the right to erect, maintain, replace, remove and Purpose: Recorded: Affects: us~ a lin~ of February 24, 1967 Book 7648, Page 345, of Official 1. Within a strip of land of the uniform width of 10 contiguous to and Northwesterly of the Southeasterly bounc 16 of Tract No. 3599 Westchester Industrial Park, recorde( Maps, pag~ 47, and extending from the Westerly boundary 1 16, Northeasterly 230 feet, more Or less, to the Southwes line of the city street known as Westchester Drive. ecords. feet, lying ary line of Lot in Book 175 of ne of said Lot erly boundary ! 2. Beginning at a point in the Westerly boundary lin~ of said Lot 16 and running thence South 61" 49' West, 1 foot, more o~ le~s, to a point from which the most Southerly corner of said Lot 16 bears|North 89" 37' East 1.0 feet distant; thence North 1° 11' West 287.7 fee~; thence North 4" 17 1/2' West 224.5 feet. 21. Covenants, From: Recorded: conditions and restrictions as contained i Santa Clara County Flood Control January 30, 1970 ~ook ~16, Page ~19, of Official (Affects Parcel Four) Refcrence in mad~ to said document for full part{cula (Cont'd on next page) the Deed Water District [ecords. Exhibit B6 of 11 206707- ~ 22. An easement for the purpose shown below and rights inc~idental as set forth in a document ! thereto Granted to: Purpose: Santa Clara County Flood Control District (No representation is'made am to ownership of said easement) ingress and egress April 10, 1970 Book 8885, Page 541, of Official nd Water he present Records. Affects: Seginning at the Southeasterly corner of said lands, aid point having also the Northeasterly corner of that certain parc~l of land conveyed to the Santa Clara Valley Water Conservation District by H.T. Petersen, et ux, in Deed recorded, in Book 4128 of Official Records, at page 429, in the offic~ of =he Recorder, County .of Santa ~.'lara, State California; thence along the Northerly line of said Distr~ct, North 89°"f 25' West 20.00 feet; thence along a curve to the left fro~l a tangent which bears North 00° 25' West with a radius of 45.00 fee~., through a central angle of. 81" 45' 04', for an arc ~istance of 64.2% feet; thence North 62° 21' 09' East 65.84 feet; thence South 00° 25' Sa]st 75.01 feet to the point of beginning. · 23. An easement for the purpose shown below and rights ln~dental thereto as set forth in a document · Granted to: Purpose- Recorded: Pacific Gas and Electric Company, a California corporation (No representation is made as to ownership of said easement) to construct, place, inspect, mai~ replace and remove facilities con~ underground conduits, pipes, manh~ boxes~ wires, cables and other eL conductors, together with a right. and the right of ~ngre~$ thereto therefrom September 24, 1970 Book 9065, Page 114, of Official ~ecord~. :he present ~tain, operate, ~isting Df )les, service ~ctrical of way therefor ~nd egress (Cont'd on next page) Exhibit B7 of 11 Affects: A strip of land of the uniform width of 5 feet, extending from the Easterly boundary lane of said real property, Westerly to/the Easterly boundary line of the state highway known as ~ighway 17, a~d lying equally on each side of a line which begins at a point in the Easterly boundary line of said real property distant along said Easterly boundary line, 22.0 feet Southerly from the Northeast corner of said rea~ property, and runs thence North 89" 50' West 245 feet, more or less, to/the Easterly boundary lAne of said Highway 17. 24. An Agreement to Construct Land Development Improvements, upon the terms, covenants and conditions therein imposed which sha~l be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the successors in interest, Executed by: Car Development Company and City ~f Campbell Recorded: May 2, 1984 ~ Book I509, pag. 675, of Off~.c{a 1 ~cord~. 25. An easement for the purpose shown below and rights incidental thereto a~ ~et {orth in a ~ocument Granted to: Purpose: County Sanitation DistrAct No. 4 County, a public corporation (No rep[esentati0n is made as to ownership of said easement) constructing, completing, reconst repairing, maintaining and' operat sewers and appurtenances for said Beginning at the Northeasterly corner of that certain Survey for Vincent Raney, a Map of which is filed in Book page 18, in the County Recorder's Office of said Santa Ci ~f Santa Clara ~he present ucting, ,ng sanitary District, together with the right of ingress and egress therefor Recorded: November 21, 1984 Book J059, Page 242, of Official [ecords. Affects: Record of 214 of Maps, at ra County; thence from said point of beginning, Southerly along the Easterly boundary of said Record of Survey, South 07" 21' 02' Hest~ SOUth 06° 21' 02' west 459.18 f==t; thence Westerly and 1~ Easterly boundary of said Record .of Survey, North 89" 49' (Cont'd on next page) 221.63 feet, 18° West 338.15 Exhibit B8 of 11 '- 206707!A feet; thence South 00° 10' 42' west 271.52 feet; thence Sc West 256.06 feet; thence South 24" 32' 00" West 198.08 fee 71° 15' 00' West 233.07 feet; thence South 00' lO' 42" ~e: a point in the Southerly boundary of said Record of Surwe' Westerly along said Southerly boundary, North 89" 49' 18" feet: thence Northerly and leaving said Southerly boundar, 42' East 17.09 feet; thence North 71" 15' 00" East 235.89' North 24° 32' 00" East 197.92 feet; thence North 69" 43' ~ ~uth 69" 42' ~t: thence South t 9.95 feet to ; thence west 10.00 ' N~rth 00" 10 feet; thence )0" East 253.28 feet; thence North Od" lO' 4.2" East 279.58 feet: ruth East 334.69 feet; thence Northerly and parallel at right Angle distance of 15 feet from the Easterly boundary of said Record of S~rvey, North 06" 21' 02" Ea.~.t 445.85 feet and North 07" 21' 02" ]~a=t 219.84 fe~t point on the Northerly boundary of said Record of SurYey;-thence Easterly along said Northerly boundary, South 89" 50' 16' East'15.1~2 feet to the point of beginning. Grantor hereby further grants to Grantee the right to the use of such land on each ~ide of the hereinabove described 10 {dot st~'ip as may reasonably necessary for the deposit of earth and constru~:tion materials and the use and operation of equipment during the constru~:tion, maintenance, repair, or replacement of said sanitary sewers and appurtenances. 26. The fact that said land is included within a project rea of the Redevelopment Agency shown below, and that the proceeding~ for the redevelopment of said project have been instituted under %he Redevelopment Law (such redevelopment to proceed only aft%.r the adoption of the redevelopment plan) as disclosed by a document. Redevelopment Agency- Recorded: Second Amended and Restated Centri Redevelopment Plan June 18, 1992 Book ~246, Page 506, of Official 27. Deed Restriction Agreement executed by Western Federal Loan Association, a federally chartered stock savings and association, dated February 10, 1993 and recorded Februar~ Book M630 of Official Records, page 1370. Campbell ~ecords. Sawings and loan 17, 1993 in 28. Any rights of the parties in possession of said land, based on an unr~¢ord=d l=ame, or le~s, ~ di~¢lo,~d by ~n (Cont'd on next page) ~xhibit B9 of 11 ! 206707%A 29. Any ~acts, rights, interests or claims which a correct show. OF SCHEDULE B NOTE 1: Premises not assessed for the f~scal year 19 survey would 5-1996. NOTE 2: If this Company is requested to disburse fun,.s in connection with this transaction, Chapter 598, Statutes of 1989 mandY.res hold periods for checks deposited to escrow or subescrow accoumts. The mandatory hold period for cashier's checks, certified che4:ks and teller's checks is one business day after the day deposited. Other checks require a hold period from three to seven business days after the day deposited. NOTE 3: If a 1970 ALTA Owner's or Lender'~ or ]975 A].TA Leasehold Owner's or Lender's policy form has been requested, the ~,licy, when approved for issuance, will be endorsed to add the follow ng to the Exclusions From Coverage contained therein: Loan Policy Exclusion: I Any claim, which arises out of the transaction creating the interest of the mortgagee insured by this policy, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditor~.' rights laws, that is based on: (i) the transaction creating the interest of the in:lured mortgagee being deemed a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer; or (ii) the subordination of the interest of the insure~ mortgagee as a result of the application of the doctrine of eq4itable subordination; or (iii) the transaction creating the interest of the in~ being deemed a preferential transfer except whe~ preferential transfer results from the failure- (a) to timely record the instIument of transfe] (b) of such recordation to impart notice to a purchaser for value or a judgment or lien (Cont'd on next page) ured mortgagee e the ; or :reditor. Exhibit B10 of 11 206701_A Owner's Policy Exclusion: Any claim, which arises out of the transaction vesting in the Insured, the estate or interest insured by this policy, ~y reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency or similar creditors' rights laws, that is based on: (i) the transaction creating the estate or interes'i insured by policy being deemed a fraudulent conveyance or,fraudulent this transfer; or (ii) the transaction creating ~he estate or interest} in=ur~.d by this policy being deemed a pre erenttal transfer except w~re the preferential transfer results from the failure1 (a) to timely record the instrument of transfer; or (b) of such recordation to impart notice to a! purchaser for value or a judgment or lien icreditor. NOTE 4: T~E FOLLOWING IS FURNISHED FOR INFOR~IATION ONLY: The only conveyances affecting said land' recorded within prior to the date of this report are as follows: NONE (L~st April 21, 1994) six months insured date: ~xhibit Bll of 11 2. 3. 4. EXHIBIT C ENWIRONMENTAL STUDIES Environmental Repor~ dated February 2, 1994 prepared by Applied Geosciences, Inc. Phase I Report Dated August 30, 1993 prepared by Thomas-t-Ianig & Associates, Inc. Phase I Report dated May 4, 1993 prepared by E2C, Inc. Subsurface investigstion dated April 29, 1992 prepared by All West Environmental, Inc. Environmental Assessment dated November 30, 1991 prepared by All West Environmental, Inc. Phase II Site Investigation Report dated August 24, 1990 prepared by Dames & Moore Preliminary Site Assessment dated April 7, 1990 prepared by Dames & Moore EXHIBIT D FORM OF GRANT DEED Recording Requested By City of Campbell And When Recorded Mail To: WTA Campbell Technology Park LLC [Address] ~RANT DEED For valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, THE CITY OF CAMPBELL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, a public body corporate and politic, of the State of California ("Grantor"), acting to carry out redevelopment purposes pursuant to the Community Redevelopment ~aw of the State of California, hereby grants to WTA Campbell Technology Park LLC, a California limited liability company ("Grantee"), the real property (the "Property") consisting of specified fee and easement interests described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated in this grant deed ("Grant Deed") by this reference. 1. The Property is conveyed subject to the Disposition and Development Agreement (the "DDA") entered into by and between Grantor and Grantee and dated , 1997, the terms of which are hereby incorporated herein. The Property is further conveyed subject to specified Permitted Exceptions as defined and described in the DDA. 2. The Grantee hereby covenants and agrees, for itself and its successcrs and assigns, that the Grantee shall use, operate and maintain the Property in a manner consistent with the Redevelopment Plan for the Central Campbell Redevelopment Project Area and any amendments thereto in effect from time to time (the "Redevelopment Plan", as more fully defined in the DDA), and all applicable laws and regulations. The Agency represents that development of the Development in accordance with the Planning Approvals is consistent with and conforms to the Redevelopment Plan. The Agency shall not cause any modifications of the Redevelopment Plan that would cause the Improvements (as built in accordance with the Planning Approvals) to be inconsistent and/or not in conformity with the Redevelopment Plan. 3. The Grantee covenants,and agrees, for itself and its successors and assigns that there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of, any person or group of persons on account of race, color, creed, sexual orientation, religion, sex, physical or mental disability, marital status, national origin or ancestry in the sale, lease, sublease, transfer, use, occupancy, tenure or enjoyment of the Property and the Improvements, nor shall the Grantee itself or any person claiming under or through it establish or permit any such practice or practices of discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location, number, use or occupancy of tenants, lessees, subtenants, sublessees or vendees in the Property and the Improvements. Ail deeds, leases or contracts made relative to the Property and Improvements, or any part thereof, shall contain or be subject to substantially the following non-discrimination clauses: D-1 of 3 In deeds: "The grantee herein covenants by and for itself, its heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns, and all persons claiming under or through them, that there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of, any person or group of persons on account of race, color, creed, sexual orientation, religion, sex, physical or mental disability, marital status, national origin or ancestry in the sale, lease, sublease, transfer, use, occupancy, tenure or enjoyment of the land herein conveyed, nor shall the grantee or any person claiming under or through the grantee establish or permit any such practice or practices of discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location, number, use or Occupancy of tenants, lessees, subtenants, sublessees or vendees in the lend herein conveyed. The foregoing covenants shall run with the land." In leases: "The lessee herein covenants by and for itself, its heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, and all persons claiming under or through the Grantee, end this lease is made and accepted upon and subject to the following conditions: "That there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of, any person or group of persons on account of race, color, creed, sexual orientation, religion, sex, physical or mental disability, marital status, national origin or ancestry in the leasing, subleasing, transferring, use, occupancy, tenure or enjoyment of the land herein leased, nor shall the lessee, or any person claiming under or through the lessee, establish or permit any such practice or practices of discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location, number, use or occupancy of tenants, lessees, subtenants or vendees in the land herein leased." In contracts: "There shall be no discrimination against or segregation of, any person or group of persons on account of race. color, creed, sexual orientation, religion, sex, physical or mental disability, marital status, national origin or ancestry in the sale, lease, sublease, transfer, use, occupancy, tenure or enjoyment of the land, nor shall the transferee, or any person claiming under or through the transferee, establish or permit any such practice or practices of discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location, number, use or occupancy of tenants, lessees, subtenants or vendees in the land." 4. The covenants contained in Section 2 shall remain in effect for the longer of (a) thirty (30) years after the date of execution of the DDA, or (b) the life of the Redevelopment Plan. The covenants contained in Section 3 shall remain in effect in perpetuity. 5. No violation or breach of the covenants, conditions, restrictions, provisions or limitations contained in this Grant Deed shall defeat or render invalid or in any way impair the lien or charge of any mortgage, deed of trust or other financing or security instrument permitted by the DDA; provided, however, that any successor of Grantee to the Property and Improvements, or any part thereof, shall be bound by such covenants, conditions, restrictions, limitations and provisions, whether such successor's title was acquired by foreclosure, deed in lieu of foreclosure, trustee's sale or otherwise. 6. The covenants contained in Sections 2 and 3 of this Grant Deed shall, without regard to technical classification or designation, legal or otherwise specifically provided in this Grant Deed, be, to the fullest extent permitted by law and equity, binding for the benefit and in favor of and enforceable by the Grantor, its successor and assigns, and any successor in D-2 of 3 interest to the Property and Improvements or any part thereof, and such covenants shall run in favor of the Grantor and such aforementioned parties for the entire period during which such covenants shall be in force and effect, without regard to whether the Grantor is or remains an owner of any land or interest therein to which such covenants relate. In the event of any breach of any of such covenants, the Grantor and such aforementioned parties shall have the right to exercise all of the rights and remedies, and to maintain any actions at law or suits in equity or other property proceedings to enforce the curing of such breach. 7. Only the Grantor, its successors and assigns, and the Grantee and the successors and assigns of the Grantee in and to all or any part of the fee title to the Property and In~rovements shall ha~e the right to consent and agree to changes or to eliminate in whole or in part any of the covenants contained in this Grant Deed or to subject the Property and Improvements to additional covenants, easements, or other restrictions. For purposes of this Section, successors and assigns of the Grantee shall be defined to include only those parties who hold all or any part of the Property and Improvements in fee title, and not to include a tenant, lessee, easement holder, licensee, mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary under deed of trust, or any other person or entity having an interest less than a fee in the Property and Improvements. 8. Capitalized terms used in this Grant Deed, if not otherwise defined, shall have the meaning given to such terms in the DDA. In the event there is a conflict between the provisions of this Grant Deed, and the DDA, it is the intent of the parties hereto and their successors in interest that the DDA shall control. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Grant Deed this __ day of , 1997. GR3%NTEE: GRANTOR: WTA CAMPBELL TECHNOLOGY PARK LLC A California limited liability company CITY OF CAMPBELL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, a public body corporate and politic By: By: Its: Its: D-3 of 3 ~ ~IBIHXH I i H ~IEIHXH OFF-SITE IMPRO~~S WTA Development shall be required to design and construct the following off-site improvements to the, satisfaction of the Agency. o Install a traffic signal at the McGlincey Lane/Union Avenue intersection and provide an exclusive eastbound left mm lane by re-striping ~e intersection. Make modifications to the Curtner Avenue/McGlincey Lane intersection consistent with Figure 3-10 in the Supplemental FIR or similar improvements as may be determined by the Agev. cy to accomplish traffic controls on Curmer Avenue. Improve McGlincey Lane access easement between McGlincey Lane and the project site to City standards. Contribute $20,000 prorafional share of the cost for future planned improvements for the Camden/Curtner intersection. Extend water, storm drain, electricity, gas, telephone, cable, sewer or any other utility required for the Development. All noise mitigation as identified in Secetion 3.2.2 of the Supplemental FIR and as may be required by the City to buffer noise from the Pasco de Paiomas Mobile Home Park. EXHIBIT G December ~, q996 CAMPBELL TECHNOLOGY PARK ON WINCHESTER DRIV OUTLINE SPECIFICATIONS FOP, STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS FROM THE END OF CRISTICH LANE TO UNION AVENUE -:-IN SITE specifications wee used in preparation .~ the Preliminary The following conditions Estimate of ProDable Costs in the amount of ~549,221 for the subject in~provements. ! · Pipe lengths and sizes shall not exceed: · 1650 linear feet of 33" RCP from the end of Cristich to th~ northeast comer of the Drive-in site; m 550 linear feet of 36" RCP and 800 lineal'feet of 42" RCP existing storm drain in the Paseo de Palomas right-of-wa) Drive-In end Union Avenue, as shown on the attached Storm drain pipe shall be Class III RCP. to replace the between the =al sections. construct the Paseo de Palomas storm drain, it is assumed th~ during work To hours, ingress/egress will be reduced to one lane for two-directiehal traffic controlled by flagmen. / Acquisition of additional right-of-way, temporary construction ea~ents, or severance or damage payments to the owners of fee title or othek easements along Paseo de Palomas.will not be required. Relocations of sanitary sewer, gas, electric, telephone, cable or ~r utility facilities will not be required to install the Paseo de Palomas storfn drain. :xhibit G1 of 2 MOBILE HOMES :o' ~/w I_ 72~ _1_ 72'd: 7~. $.D. EASEMENT J- ~CONSTRUCT I-REPL~CE PAVEMENT.-.~- ~ 24" ROLLED CURB & GUT'rER / EX. 8" ACP .~ SANITARY' LOOKING WES'T NEAR MOBILE HOME' PARK N.T.S. .,,.~WOOD E,¥. 27" & .TO" RCP STORM CONSTRUCT 56" RCP STORM 10' S.D. ~ , so' ~/w'I- EASEMENT / ~NCE ~ ~ ' 12'~ ~L 12'~' ~ ~ ~- ~CONSTRUCT 1- EX. 8' XCP SANITARY LOOKING WEST NEAR APARTMENT COMPhr:'X PASEO DE PALOMAS TYPICAL SECTIONS .I ~'EX. 30" & 33" RCP STORM CONSTRUCT 42" RCP STORM Exhibit G2 of 2 Item No. 7 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 22, 1997 GP 96-02/PD 96-06/ TS 97-01/S 97-05 Neumeister, K. Public hearing to consider the application of Mr. Ken Neumeister, on behalf of WTA Development and Huettig & Schromm, Inc., for approval of the following applications for property located at 535 Westchester Drive (formerly the Winchester Drive-In Site) in a PD (Planned Development) Zoning District and 571 McGlincey Lane in an M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District: A. A General Plan Amendment (GP 96-02) to consider a change in the Land Use Element of the General Plan from Destination Commercial to Industrial. B. A Planned Development Permit (PD 96-06) to allow the construction of a 330,000 square foot research and development park. C. A Vested Tentative Subdivision Map (TS 97-01) to allow the creation of five lots. D. A Site and Architectural Approval (S 97-05) to allow the construction of two off-premise signs and landscaping at the McGlincey Lane entrance to the site. E. Certification of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR1996) for this Project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission take the following action: Adopt a Resolution, incorporating the attached findings, recommending that the City Council accept and certify the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report which has been prepared for this project; and Adopt a Resolution, incorporating the attached findings, recommending that the City Council approve a General Plan Amendment (GP 96-02) for the project site from Destination Commercial to Industrial, incorporating a map amendment and text changes in the Development Policies as provided in Attachment "A"; and o Adopt a Resolution, incorporating the attached findings, recommending that the City Council approve a Planned Development Permit (PD 96-06), subject to the conditions of approval and the attached development schedule; and Adopt a Resolution, incorporating the attached findings, recommending that the City Council approve a Vested Tentative Subdivision Map (TS 97-01),subj ect to the attached conditions; and Staff Report - Planning Commission Meeting of April 22, 1997 GP 96-02/PD 96-06/TS 97-01/S 97-05 -535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 2 o Adopt a Resolution, incorporating the attached findings, recommending that the City Council approve a Site and Architectural Approval (S 97-05), subject to the attached conditions. BACKGROUND The former Winchester Drive-In site is a 23.5 acre triangular shaped property that has remained vacant for the last 14 years after it closed as a Drive-In theater. It is situated in the McGlincey Lane neighborhood of the community which is characterized as smaller light industrial uses. The property is bordered by Highway 17 on the West, the Paseo de Palomas Mobile Home Park and apartments on the east and north and light industrial uses and a Santa Clara Valley Water District percolation pond on the south. In 1984, the City approved an industrial park development consisting of 420,000 square feet of office, warehousing and manufacturing uses. In 1990, the City changed the land use to Destination Commercial in hopes of attracting a major box retailer. While several retailers evaluated the site, none pursued a development application. The site subsequently went into foreclosure and the lending institution associated with the development of the property failed and the property came under the jurisdiction of the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC). The Redevelopment Agency acquired the project site and two other properties from the RTC in April 1994. The total acquisition included five properties totaling approximately 25 acres. Two of the properties along the access driveway to the project site have been sold. The significant obstacles to the development of the site over the years include poor access, inadequate infrastructure(storm drainage facilities and water supply) and limited visibility. Since acquisition of the site, the Agency has initiated an ongoing public process to identify appropriate land uses on the site. This process and analysis is more fully outlined in attachment "B". After a year of community meetings, the Agency Board, on April 18, 1995, authorized issuance of a Request For Proposal (RFP) to the development community for the acquisition and development of the Winchester Drive-In Site. The Board identified acceptable land uses as follows: · Light Industrial/Research and Development · Institutional (hospitals and schools) · Commercial Recreation · Non-profit/Public Recreation In January 1996, the Redevelopment Agency received seven development proposals for use of all or part of the site. Staff Report - Planning Commission Meeting of April 22, 1997 GP 96-02/PD 96-06/TS 97-01/S 97-05 - 535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 3 Over the next five months the Agency, in conjunction with staff, appointed a Board Subcommittee and met with the various proponents and evaluated each proposal. On June 4, 1996, the Agency Board authorized staff to enter into an exclusive Negotiation Agreement with WTA Development, the (applicant), to negotiate a Disposition and Development Agreement(DDA) for the sale and development of the Drive-In site as a research and development business park. The applicant is seeking planning approval for this site at this time, consistent with the Disposition and Development Agreement entered on January 7, 1997. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION On June 2, 1992 the Redevelopment Agency Board and the City Council certified a program Environmental Impact Report (McGlincey Lane EIR 1992) addressing potential environmental impacts associated with the expansion of the Redevelopment Project Area into the McGlincey Lane neighborhood and project specific analysis of potential environmental impacts associated with developing the former Winchester Drive-In site for Destination Commercial uses. As a condition of the certification of the EIR, the City Council stated it would require a Supplemental EIR (SEIR) for any specific development proposed for the project site. SEIR 1996, was prepared in the summer of 1996, with Notice of Availability (NOA) being sent on October 29, 1996. The SEIR was prepared in response to the subject research and development park on this site and the consideration of a Development and Disposition Agreement. On January 7, 1997, the Redevelopment Agency Board and the City Council found that the 1996 SEIR had been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and the Local CEQA Implementing Guidelines and certified the (SEIR) for this project. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council find and certify the 1996 (SEIR) as complete and find that the proposed project is consistent with the project described in the environmental document pursuant to section 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT In July 1990, the City Council approved a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change on the project site from an Industrial land use and M-1-S(Light Industrial) Zoning to a Commercial land use and a P-D(Planned Development) Zoning. The adopted ordinance which is attached as Exhibit "B", incorporated development policies in an effort to encourage the development of a destination commercial use (box retail) on the site. These policies relate to land use, development intensity, traffic access, noise, landscaping, parking and signage. Staff Report - Planning Commission Meeting of April 22, 1997 GP 96-02/PD 96-06/TS 97-01/S 97-05 -535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 4 The applicant is requesting approval of an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan to revert to an Industrial land use. EVALUATION OF REQUEST A. Land Use Description: The industrial land use designation allows a wide range of office, warehousing, processing, manufacturing and distribution uses. Staff proposes that use of the subject site be limited to light industrial uses permitted in the Controlled Manufacturing(CM) Zoning District (see attached CM Zoning District). This district provides an environment conducive to the development of larger scale specialized manufacturing, packing and distribution, research and development and administrative facilities which are clean and quiet. This limitation would not allow the development of this site with light industrial uses such as automotive repair and service uses, contractor's storage yards, and other similar industrial uses typically found in the light industrial areas of Campbell. B. Development Intensity: The current development policies for the site anticipate a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of .30 for a commercial destination use with a limitation of .35 based upon specific findings made by the City Council, if the specific characteristic of a project warrant an adjustment. The parking requirement and the anticipated development intensity is different for industrial projects. Typically, industrial projects requires less parking due to warehousing and manufacturing components and the FAR is greater due to larger building square footages associated with industrial development. Staff recommends that the maximum FAR for this site be .35 with a limitation of .40, if the City Council finds that the greater FAR does not adversely impact the neighborhood or the local circulation system. The applicant's current proposal has a .32 FAR. C. Traffic and Access 1. Development on the site required a detailed traffic analysis which studied project traffic impacts. A detailed traffic study was prepared in conjunction with the 1996 SEIR and the previous 1992 EIR. The SEIR analyzes the project traffic impacts and requires mitigation measures for affected intersections. The local circulation system with improvements as required in the mitigation measures provides adequate circulation to the project site for industrial uses. Staff Report - Planning Commission Meeting of April 22, 1997 GP 96-02/PD 96-06/TS 97-01/S 97-05 - 535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 5 As previously discussed, the project access to the public right of way is limited. Any development of the project site should improve access by the creation of a public street which would connect to McGlincey Lane. The future public street should include both vehicular and pedestrian improvement necessary to serve the access needs of the uses proposed on the site. D. Noise Development of the subject site may create noise impacts in two areas: On adjoining residential uses and Along streets used by motorists going and coming from the site These impacts may be anticipated during construction and with the establishment of uses on the property. Analysis in the 1992 EIR concluded that the currently planned commercial use would increase noise levels by approximately 1.4 decibels over a research and development use. Three decibels is the minimum perceptible change in noise levels. The recommended development policies associated with this general plan amendment require implementation of techniques to reduce possible noise through the location of loading areas and mechanical equipment, construction of sound walls and limitation of operational hours. The (SEIR 1996) discusses potential noise impacts and appropriate mitigation measures. Eo Landscaping Development policies are recommended that encourage an attractive appearance of the project site from Highway 17, the provision of a 50 foot landscaping buffer along adjacent mobile home and the provision of planting and pedestrian amenities throughout the parking area. Development Policies Staff has prepared the attached development policies which are designed to accompany the General Plan Amendment. These policies elaborate general planning and design principals which will provide guidance to the future development of this site. These policies include allowed land uses, traffic improvements, noise and landscaping issues with the development of this site under an industrial land use designation. Staff Report - Planning Commission Meeting of April 22, 1997 GP 96-02/PD 96-06/TS 97-01/S 97-05 - 535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 6 Light Industrial/Research and Development Land Use Compatibility The designation of the project site as an industrial land use establishes a land use pattern consistent with of industrial uses to the south of the project site and will encourage the redevelopment of the McGlincey Lane neighborhood. The interface to adjacent residential uses is buffered through the introduction of a landscape buffer policy. Consistency with Other General Plan Elements State law requires that the elements of the General Plan be internally consistent. The proposed change in land use from a Destination Commercial use to Industrial Use is consistent with the circulation, housing, conservation, open space, seismic, noise, safety and air quality elements. Circulation The existing circulation system adjacent to the site with the required traffic improvements identified in the (SEIR) will be adequate to serve the anticipated traffic from an industrial land use of the project site. McGlincey Lane and Curtner Avenue are classified as a Class I Collector on the Circulation Element of the General Plan, anticipating a maximum of 12,000 vehicle trips per day. To avoid significant delays at various intersections the following traffic improvements will be required: 1. Provision of a signal at McGlincey Lane and Union Ave. and the restriping of the intersection. 2. Reconfiguration of the intersection of Curtner Avenue and McGlincey Lane allowing through access from eastbound Curtner to McGlincey Lane. 3. Provision of a public street access to the site from McGlincey Lane and the creation of an intersection at the McGlincey lane and the new public street. 4. Other traffic mitigation measures are identified in the (1996 SEIR) Open Space The Open Space Element, adopted in 1990, established the open space standard for the overall community of 4 acres/1000 persons. The Open Space Element determined park need by neighborhood and identified the Union Avenue, San Tomas, West Latimer, Downtown, White Oaks and Dover neighborhoods as deficient or potentially impacted by loss of school facilities. The Open Space Element prioritized acquisition and development of sites in neighborhoods deficient in open space and identified an access standard which strives to provide parks within ¼ to ½ mile radius of all City residents (Policies 1.1 and 1.3). The Element established acquisition criteria that emphasized need, access to residents and visibility to the public. The attached memorandum (Attachment "C") dated January 7, 1997 to the City Council more fully discusses the open space element issues. Staff Report - Planning Commission Meeting of April 22, 1997 GP 96-02/PD 96-06/TS 97-01/S 97-05 - 535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 7 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PROJECT DATA Lot Area: 23.5 Acres Project density: 330,000 square feet total Building A: 60,000 square feet 2 stories Building B: 100,000 square feet 2 stories Building C: 80,000 square feet 2 stories Building D: 40,000 square feet 1 stow Building E: 50,000 square feet 1 stow Site Utilization: Building Coverage Paving Coverage Landscaped Coverage Square Feet Percent 204,000 square feet 22% 482,300 square feet 51% 259,200 square feet 27 % Floor Area Ratio (FAR) .32 Parking Required: Parking Ratio 1: 250 (Research and Development) 1320 total spaces Parking Provided: 1:259 1271 total spaces 49 spaces deficient or 3.7 percent Standard spaces 898 Compact spaces 347(28 %) Handicapped Spaces 26 1271 ANALYSIS Zoning: The project site is currently zoned P-D(Planned Development). Under this zoning, uses that are determined to be consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan are permitted. The applicant has not indicated specific industrial uses at this time, however, they have indicated that preliminaw discussion have taken place with a software development company for the first two buildings in the project. Staff is recommending a condition of approval that restricts the usage of this building to uses permitted within the C- M(Controlled Manufacturing) Zoning District. This recommendation is based upon the larger size of these building sites, the desire to maintain quiet and clean uses and the proximity of the site to residential uses. Staff Report - Planning Commission Meeting of April 22, 1997 GP 96-02/PD 96-06/TS 97-01/S 97-05 - 535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 8 Site Plan: The presented site plan indicates the construction of (5) five one and two story concrete tilt-up buildings centered along a private street proposed through the middle of the site. The private street forms a "T" intersection with a new public street along the southerly boundary of the site which will be provide access to McGlincey Lane. The public street will also connect to Cristich Lane which currently is private driveway serving industrial properties to the south of the site. The City has identified the conversion of Cristich Lane to a public street as a Capital Improvement Program item in 1997. The proposed public street would be connected to Cristich Lane, when it is improved as a public street. A service driveway is provided around the perimeter of the site for tack and emergency access. Building Design: The proposed building elevations depict a contemporary building style with a general building height of 34 feet for two story buildings and 21 feet for single story buildings. Each building is provided a tower or main building entrance oriented towards the private street, except for Building "E" entrance which is oriented toward the new public street. Building materials include a texture concrete panel for walls and tinted and reflective glass for glazing systems. All of the building utilize a similar materials palette, however, each building is provided an individual design, with an overall project theme being carried out through the use of consistent materials and landscaping. Each building incorporates one combination tack dock and grade level access tack door centrally located at each building. The loading and service areas have been oriented away from the mobile home park with the exception of Building "D". Staff is recommends some minor modifications to the presented elevations addressing the following concerns: 1. Provision of greater building plane offsets between the glazing and the texture wall treatment 2. Further review extending a concrete parapet treatment at the building comer where the radius bullnose is shown. 3. Provision of additional pillars at the building entrances for Buildings A,B, D and E and 4. Modification to the roof screen proposed on Buildings D and E. Staff Report - Planning Commission Meeting of April 22, 1997 GP 96-02/PD 96-06/TS 97-01/S 97-05 - 535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 9 Parking The site plan is indicating the provision of 1271 parking spaces for the proposed project or a parking ratio of 1:259. The ITE Generation Manual 1991, surveyed a number of research and development facilities recommending an average parking count of 1221 parking spaces or a parking ratio of 1:270 for a project of this size. Staff supports the proposed parking ratio due to the scale of this project, the ability to share parking facilities between buildings, the potential for less intensive industrial uses such as warehousing/manufacturing in larger buildings and the industrial parking demand for larger research and development facilities. Landscaping The site plan indicates that approximately 27 percent of the project landscaped. The minimum requirement for landscaping in C-M Manufacturing) Zoning District is 10 percent. site will be (Controlled The presented conceptual landscape plan proposes the following features for the development of the site. 1. A 50'wide landscape buffer along the mobile home park frontage incorporating a pedestrian path, picnic tables and the retention of the majority of existing trees along this property line. 2. A 15' landscape buffer along the northerly property line and a 10' landscape buffer along the Highway 17 frontage and the retention of a majority of existing trees along this frontage. 3. Landscaping along both the private and public streets throughout the project. 4. Three half basketball courts adjacent to building loading docks. 5. The provision of a pedestrian walkway system throughout the project connecting buildings and accessing the public right of way 6. Installation of passive plaza areas between buildings and at the building entrance A row of eucalyptus trees along the south property line and a variety of trees on the interior of the project site are proposed to be removed. The applicant has indicated the replacement of these trees with 137 (24 "box trees) throughout the project. This tree replacement is consistent with the Water Efficient Landscape Standards(WELS) guidelines adopted by the City. Fencing and Soundwalls: The applicant proposes to the construction a 6' precast wall along the north property line, the property line adjoining the mobile home park and adjacent to the percolation ponds to the south. A 6' cyclone fence is proposed along the Highway 17 frontage. Staff Report - Planning Commission Meeting of April 22, 1997 GP 96-02/PD 96-06/TS 97-01/S 97-05 -535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 10 Staff is recommends a condition of approval that requires the applicant to investigate a more open style fence adjacent to the percolation ponds and along the public right of way that serves as the entrance to the project. Project Phasing The applicant has proposed phasing for project construction. The applicant has submitted a phasing plan that indicates that all perimeter site improvement, major infrastructure improvements and utilities and all off-site improvements will be constructed with Phase One of the project Phase One: Building B and supporting improvements described in Attachment "7". Construction to commence within one year of City Council approval and to be completed within one year after commencement. Phase Two: Building C and related site improvements. Construction to commence within one year and six months of City Council approval and to be completed within one year of commencement. · Phase Three: Buildings A, D and E and related site improvements. No restriction on the timing of the third phase. VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP The applicant is requesting approval of a vesting tentative map to allow the division of the project site into five parcels to accommodate each of the proposed buildings. Each of the proposed lots will share access from the proposed private street and will share ingress and egress easements as well as maintenance agreement through the development of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions(CC and R's). The presented lots are reasonably self sufficient from a parking and landscaping standpoint, however, they will require appropriate easements for ingress and egress purposes. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL The applicant is proposing the construction of a new public street to access McGlincey Lane. The entrance at McGlincey Lane presents two low screen walls with signage identifying the project and landscaping treatment. Staff Report - Planning Commission Meeting of April 22, 1997 GP 96-02/PD 96-06/TS 97-01/S 9%05 -535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 11 The Sign Ordinance would restrict off premise signage to a semi-public use to forty square feet in area. Staff is recommending a condition of approval requiring the specific approval of a sign program for this project. This program would address the building and project identification. This parcel currently is not contiguous to the project site and consequently the signage represents an off premise sign which must be considered by the Planning Commission. PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION The Commission review this project at its meeting of April 9, 1997, in that they had identified a review of this project's open space features as a part of its goals and objectives for 1997-98. The Commission offered the following comments: 1. Encouraged the applicant to work with the adjacent mobile home park to allow usage of the path component by the mobile home park residents. 2. Requested further review to encourage retention of more of the existing trees on the project site. 3. To further refine the planting palette of the conceptual landscaping plan to minimize plant materials which are sensitive to freezes. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE This application before the Site and Architectural Review Committee at its meeting of April 10, 1997. The Committee chose to not review the application, in that a recommendation regarding the requested General Plan Amendment had not been considered by the Planning Commission. HEARING PROCESS Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take public testimony on the Land Use and Development applications and then close the public hearing. The Commission should begin with the environmental determination, then the land use issue and then proceed to the development applications(Planned Development Permit, Vesting Tentative Map and Site and Architectural Approval). The City Council looks to the Planning Commission to provide recommendations on all aspects of the application and will want input regarding the merits of the development applications. Staff Report - Planning Commission Meeting of April 22, 1997 GP 96-02/PD 96-06/TS 97-01/S 97-05 -535 Westchester Drive/571 McGlincey Lane Page 12 Attachments 1. Recommended PC Resolution for SEIR 1996 2. Recommended Findings for GP 96-02. 3. Recommended Findings and Conditions of Approval for PD 96-06. 4. Recommended Findings and Conditions of Approval for TS 97-01. 5. Recommended Findings and Conditions of Approval for S 97-05. 6. Winchester Drive-In Site Public Process Summary 7. Project Description - Huettig & Schromm, Inc./Kenneth Neumeister February 10, 1997. 8. Reduced Exhibits (Distributed under separate cover) 9. Environmental Documents (EIR 1992 and SEIR 1996) (Distributed under separate cover) 10. Campbell Redevelopment Agency Resolution No. 1997-1 and City Council Resolution No.9181 Certifying (SEIR 1996) for the project. 11. Location Map 12. Attachment A - Proposed Development Policies and Map 13. Attachment B - Previous General Plan Ordinance 14. Attachment C - Open Space Memorandum dated 1/7/97 Submitted by~-[ ~e~ Tim J. Planner Approved by Steve Piasecki, Co'~munity Development Director Attachment #2 FINDINGS OF APPROVAL OF FILE NO. GP 96-02 SITE ADDRESS: 535 WESTCHESTER DRIVE/571 McGLINCEY LANE APPLICANTS: KEN NEUMEISTER/WTA DEVELOPMENT P.C. MEETING: APRIL 22, 1997 Findines for Aooroval for a General Plan Amendment The Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to Application No. GP 96-02: o The proposed land use change from Commercial Destination back to industrial continues a land use pattern which is consistent with surrounding existing and planned uses, creates a more desirable land use for the adjacent residential uses and is consistent with the long term designation of this property as industrial for the previous twenty five continuous years prior to its designation as Commercial Destination. Commercial Destination use is not viable or desirable to potential developers because the access is circuitous and lacks commercial visibility. Reverting this property back to Industrial is consistent with the policies and objectives of the Circulation Element in that traffic patterns and intensity is within the capacity of surface streets in the area and that traffic mitigation that is project specific will minimize traffic impacts. The proposed land use change to Industrial is consistent with the Open Space Element in that the property is not a desirable site for public recreation as defined under the Open Space Element and the site does not meet the criteria established on page 8 of the Open Space Element for acquiring and developing open space. The site is not within walking distance to a significant number of Campbell residents, it is not highly visible to passing police patrols or adjacent residences and it is not accessible to Campbell residents due to lack of convenient pedestrian, vehicular and bicycle access given that there are no continuous sidewalks and bicycle lanes in the area, and the frequency of commercial trucks and heavy vehicle traffic in the area does not provide a desirable condition or environment for public recreation. FINDINGS OF APPROVAL OF FILE NO. GP 96-02 Page 2 o The proposed land use change is consistent with the Housing Element in that Campbell's Housing Element is certified by the State and there are no substantial negative impacts of Industrial uses vs. Commercial Destination uses. Additionally, this area is not desirable for residential uses because of its proximity to Highway 17. and the surrounding industrial uses in the area that make it difficult to create a desirable living environment. The City continues to maintain a reasonable balance between jobs created and housing provided. o The proposed land use change is consistent with the Noise Element of the General Plan in that the proposed project will create less noise than alternative land uses such as Destination Commercial or Commercial Recreation given that activities are confined indoors, noise mitigation have been incorporated into the site design and hours of operation are consistent with normal business hours. This is consistent with goals and objectives identified in the Noise Element. ° The proposed land use change of the subject property back to Industrial is consistent with all elements of the General Plan given the historic land use designation of this property over the years and the surrounding land use patterns. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the Planning Commission further finds and concludes that: The proposed industrial land use results in an more appropriate use of the land than would be possible with other land use designations. The industrial land use is compatible with the General Plan of the City and will aid in the harmonious development of the immediate area. Attachment #3 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF FILE NO. PD 96-06 SITE ADDRESS: 535 WESTCHESTER DRIVE/571 McGLINCEY LANE APPLICANTS: KEN NEUMEISTER/WTA DEVELOPMENT P.C. MEETING: APRIL 22, 1997 Findings for Approval for a Planned Development Permit The Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to Application No. PD 96-06: 1. Thc proposed 330,000 square foot research and development park and on-site and off-site improvements are consistent with the project description provided in the 1996 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (1996 SEIR) prepared for this project. On January 7, 1997, the City Council found and certified that the 1996 SEIR has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and the Local CEQA Implementing Guidelines; that the 1996 SEIR adequately addresses the environmental issues of the project; and that the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the information in the 1996 SEIR, prior to making any recommendations to the City Council on the project and for the discretionary approvals necessary to the development of the project. The proposed project, subject to the attached conditions of approval, is consistent with the development standards provided in the C-M (Controlled Manufacturing) Zoning District and is consistent with the recommended Industrial land use designation. a. The site plan provides a parking ratio 1:260 or 1271 parking spaces. The provided parking is sufficient for a larger scale project with a controlled manufacturing industrial type of use which will incorporate some warehousing and manufacturing components typical to a research and development use. b. The proposed project will landscape approximately 27 percent of the site area incorporating perimeter landscape buffers, tree lined streets, pedestrian amenities such as sidewalks and plazas, outdoor recreational facilities and a par course along the eastern perimeter. c. The anticipated building use will be consistent with the uses permitted in the Controlled Manufacturing Zoning District. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF FILE NO. PD 96-06 Page 2 The proposed site layout, design and massing of the project is appropriate to the size of the project site and is sensitive to adjacent residential and industrial uses. The proposed lot arrangement allows for the creation of five industrial lots along a private street. The proposed street layout and driveway locations addresses the circulation needs and anticipated traffic for the proposed project. o The improvements of local infrastructure including storm drainage facilities, water supply, and roadway improvements will aid and encourage the redevelopment of neighboring industrial properties. The site layout does not preclude provision of a pedestrian/bicycle overpass over Highway 17 from the project site to the Los Gatos Creek Trail. ° There are sufficient private recreation opportunities to meet the needs of the future project occupants in keeping with Policy # 2.5 of the City's Open Space Element, including the following features: a. A 50foot wide landscape buffer along the mobile home park frontage incorporating a pedestrian path, picnic tables and retaining the majority of existing trees along this property lline. b. A 15foot landscape buffer along the northerly property line and a 10 foot buffer along the Highway 17 frontage and the retention of the majority of existing trees along these frontages. c. Landscaping along both the private and public streets throughout the project. d. Three half basketball courts. e. The provision of a pedestrian walkway system throughout the project connecting buildings and accessing the public right of way. f. Installation of passive plaza areas between buildings and at the building entrances. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the Planning Commission further finds and concludes that: The proposed development and uses clearly will result in a more desirable environment and use of the land than would be possible under any other zoning classification. The development and uses are compatible with the recommended Industrial Land Use and the General Plan of the City and will aid in the harmonious development of the immediate area. The proposed development will not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of the neighborhood or the City as a whole. Attachment #4 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF FILE NO. TS 97-01 SITE ADDRESS: 535 WESTCHESTER DRIVE/571 McGLINCE¥ LANE APPLICANTS: KEN NEUMEISTER/WTA DEVELOPMENT P.C. MEETING: APRIL 22, 1997 Findings for Approval for a Tentative Subdivision Map The Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to Application No. TS 97-01: The proposed lots are of sufficient size and shape to accommodate the intended use and the tentative subdivision map lays out the lots in a regular rectangular pattern accessible off of a public and private street pattern that is sufficient to accommodate the necessary vehicular movements. The proposed map is consistent with the development standards of the P-D (Planned Development) Zoning District and the Planned Development Application (PD 96-06). o The proposed subdivision layout provides sufficient open space to accommodate the intended users of the facility and allows for access to sunlight. The design of the proposed subdivision allows for the appropriate grading and drainage facilities, public utility easements, improvement of utilities, and private driveway and access easements necessary to serve these properties. The 1996 SEIR prepared for the development of the project identifies the impacts associated with the development of this site with five industrial buildings Based on the foregoing findings of fact, the Planning Commission further finds and concludes that, subject to the imposed conditions: The proposed subdivision is consistent with the policies and intent of the General Plan. The proposed subdivision does not impair the balance between the housing needs of the region and the public service needs of the residents and available fiscal and environmental resources; The site is physically suitable for the proposed type of development and the proposed lot pattern. 5o FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF FILE NO. TS 96-03 Page 2 The design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities. The project, as currently presented and subject to the required conditions of approval will have a significant adverse impact on the environment. Attachment #5 FINDINGS OF APPROVAL OF FILE NO. S 97-05 SITE ADDRESS: 535 WESTCHESTER DRIVE/571 McGLINCEY LANE APPLICANTS: KEN NEUMEISTER/WTA DEVELOPMENT P.C. MEETING: APRIL 22, 1997 Findings for Approval for a Site and Architectural Approval The Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to Application No. S 97-05: The proposed entry signage and landscaping is a permitted use for the site and is consistent with the M-1-S (Light Industrial) zoning designation and Industrial General Plan land use designation for the site. 2. The proposed project is of an appropriate scale and design and is compatible with the existing surrounding uses. 3. The proposed project site is of adequate size to develop the proposed entry feature and street. Based on the foregoing findings of fact, the Planning Commission further finds and concludes that: The establishment, maintenance or operation of the use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, or be detrimental or injurious to the property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City. 2. The proposed project will aid in the harmonious development of the surrounding environment. 3. The proposed use is compatible with the surrounding uses in the area, subject to the Conditions of Approval. The proposed site is adequately served by streets of sufficient capacity, subject to the proposed public street improvements required by the Public Works Department, to carry the kind and quantity of traffic the proposed use would generate. 5. The conditions of approval are roughly proportional and reasonably related in nature and extent to the impacts of the project. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR FILE NO. PD 96-06 SITE ADDRESS: 535 WESTCHESTER DRIVE/571 McGLINCEY LANE APPLICANTS: KEN NEUMEISTER/WTA DEVELOPMENT P.C. MEETING: APRIL 22, 1997 The applicants are hereby notified, as part of this application, that they are required to meet the following conditions in accordance with the Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the State of California. The lead department with which the applicant will work is identified. Additionally, the applicants are hereby notified that they are required to comply with all applicable Codes and Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the State of California that pertain to this development and are not contained herein. SITE AND BUILDING DESIGN: Approved Project: This approval is granted to construct a 330,000 square foot research and development complex on a 23.5 acre site identified as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 412-29-007, 412-30-035, 412-30-042 and 412-30-043. Development shall be substantially as shown on the project and exhibit materials listed below, except as may be modified by conditions contained herein: (Planning) mo Use of building for research and development. The proposed research and development and industrial use shall substantially comply with the use description provided in the applicant's letter dated February 10, 1997. The proposed uses shall be conducted entirely with the interior of the buildings and not in the parking area, driveways or landscape areas surrounding the buildings, except for the on site parking and loading. Exterior storage yards and exterior tank or processing areas are not permitted with this approval. Building use to be restricted to administrative and private offices, conference and training areas, and complementary engineering/research development, testing and assembly areas, including warehousing and shipping/receiving areas. B. Project plans prepared by TSH Architects (25 pages) dated 2/7/97. C. Project description by Huettig & Schromm dated 2/10/97. Revised Plans and Elevations: Revised elevations and/or site plan indicating the following changes: A. Site Plan: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR FILE NO. PD 96-06 Page 2 Bo Landscaping along Highway 17 Frontage: Upgrade landscaping along the Highway 17 frontage of the project through working with CALTRANS to provide tree planing 40' o.c. Plan approval is required, prior to building occupancy and planting installation to be completed within one year of building occupancy. Landscaping of Percolation Ponds: Enter into an agreement with the City of Campbell, wherein mutual participation of upgrading the landscaping around the percolation ponds adjacent to the project site is achieved. Specific plans to be approved by the Santa Clara Valley Water District and plan approval and installation to be completed within five (5) years of project approval. o Fencing: The proposed fencing along Highway 17 frontage to be a black vinyl clad 6' to 8' cyclone fence. Applicant to investigate the provision of an open style fence along the southerly property line adjacent to the percolation pond and along the project entrance. Fencing plan t° be approved by the Site and Architectural Review Committee in conjunction with the landscaping and irrigation plan prior to the issuance of building permits. Elevations: Applicant to introduce a building plane offset of approximately two (2) feet or to add an additional trellis element for the concrete wall features on Buildings A, B and C. 2. Applicant extendsion of the concrete parapet treatment at building comers where the radius bullnose treatment is shown. 3. All roof-mounted equipment to be screened by the proposed parapet walls or feature walls at the building entrances. 4. Applicant to install additional pillar treatments at the building entrances for Buildings A, B, D and E. 5. Applicant to investigate the modification of the glass roof screen on Buildings D and E to parallel the decorative metal screen. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR FILE NO. PD 96-06 Pa§e 3 Co Transportation Demand Management: Applicant to participate in a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program for future tenants and to incorporate participation in such program through the covenants, conditions and restrictions. This program to incorporate, but is not limited to the following: 1. Provision of Bicycle Parking Facilities. 2. Provision of on-site food service facilities. o Participation in shuttle/car pool service to public transit facilities such as light rail stations or park and ride lots when these facilities are constructed. 4. Accommodation of bus stop locations, if public bus service is provided to the site. Do Operation hours of exterior activities (i.e. loading and unloading, outdoor recreation) to be limited to the hours of 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. for Buildings C, D and E. o Hours of Operation: Hours of operation shall be limited to 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. (Planning) A. Employee access to the site shall not be limited by hours of operation. B. Delivery hours shall be restricted per the project description. Trucking access will not be permitted from 11 p.m. to 6:30 a.m. LANDSCAPING ° Landscaping Plan: Landscaping plan indicating type and size of plant material and location of the irrigation system to be submitted to the Planning Department and approved by the Site and Architectural Review Committee prior to issuance of building permits. The minimum size of trees and shrubs planted on-site, except as modified by conditions contained herein, shall be as follows: A. Trees shall be a minimum of 15 gallon. Twenty four inch box trees shall be required as a mitigation measure for all removed trees. B. Shrubs shall be a minimum of 5 gallons with the exception of accent shrubs that shall be a minimum of 1 gallon. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR FILE NO. PD 96-06 Page 4 o C. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit a tree protection plan shall be submitted for all retained trees on the site. The landscape plan shall comply with the City's Water Efficient Landscape Standards (WELS). A WELS checklist shall be submitted with the final landscape plan. (Planning) Screening of Mobile Home Park: The applicant shall install a minimum 6' precast concrete fence along the property line adjacent to the mobile home park. The applicant shall submit a report from a acoustical engineer verifying that the height and the materials of the proposed fence provides adequate sound attenuation as recommended by the SEIR Tree Retention and Removal: Applicant to submit a tree protection plan prior to any grading and cleating of the project site. Any trees to be removed to be replaced consistent with the WELS standards for tree replacement. STREET/SITE IMPROVEMENTS o Parking and Driveways: All driveways and parking areas to be improved in compliance with Chapter 21.50 of the Campbell Municipal Code ° Lighting Plan: Lighting from the site shall not spill over to adjoining properties. A revised lighting plan, indicating that lighting will not spill over to the adjoining properties and that the average intensity of lighting does not exceed one foot candle, shall be submitted to the Planning Department and approved by the Community Development Director (CDD)prior to the issuance of building permits. (Planning) 10. Soils and Geologic Report: A soils and geologic report shall be submitted to the Planning Department and Public Works Department for review prior to the issuance of building permits. The report shall include the investigation of the site's potential for surface rupture, ground acceleration and liquefaction. The study shall recommend measures to reduce the potential for seismic hazards. (Planning/Public Works) PROPERTY MANAGEMENT/UTILITIES 11. Property Maintenance: Before and during construction, the site shall be kept free of weeds, trash and litter.(Planning) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR FILE NO. PD 96-06 Page 5 12. Garbage Collection: Ordinance No. 782 of the Campbell Municipal Code stipulates that any contract for the collection and disposal of refuse, garbage, wet garbage and rubbish produced within the limits of the City of Campbell shall be made with Green Valley Disposal Company. This requirement applies to all single-family dwellings, multiple-family dwellings and all commercial, business, industrial, manufacturing and construction establishments. (Fire) 13. Trash Containers: Trash storage method(s) of a size and quality necessary to serve the development shall be located in area(s) approved by the Fire Department. Any enclosure(s) located outside the building and loading area shall consist of a concrete floor surrounded by a solid wall or fence and have self-closing doors of a size specified by the Fire Department. All enclosures to be constructed at grade level and have a level area adjacent to the trash enclosure area to service these containers. (Fire/Planning) PUBLIC SAFETY/WELFARE 14. Handicapped Requirements: Applicant shall comply with all appropriate State and City requirements for the handicapped. (Building) 15. Underground Utilities: Underground utilities to be provided as required by Section 20.36.150 of the Campbell Municipal Code. (Public Works) 16. Utility Boxes and Back-Flow Preventers: Applicant to submit a plan to the Planning Department, prior to installation of PG&E transformer boxes and San Jose Water Company back-flow prevention devises, indicating the location of the boxes and screening (if boxes are above ground) for approval of the CDD. (Planning) 17. Equipment Screening: All mechanical equipment on roofs and all utility meters to be screened and approved by the CDD. (Planning) 18. Roof Equipment: The applicant shall supply noise specifications for all mechanical equipment proposed. The applicant shall supply an updated noise study to verify that noise generated by the roof mounted equipment is not audible at the property line shared with existing residential uses and that the equipment complies with the following: A. The Campbell Noise Element standards. B. Should the noise level exceed Campbell standards, the noise report shall specify mitigation measures.(Planning) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR FILE NO. PD 96-06 Page 6 19. Utility Connections: Plans submitted to the Building Division for plan check shall indicate clearly the location of all connections for underground utilities including water, storm and sewer, electric, telephone and television cables, etc. (Building) 20. Construction Hours and Dust Mitigation: 21. 22. 23. 24. A. Hours of construction shall be limited to 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, unless an exception is granted by the Building Official. B. The construction site shall be sprinkled with water as necessary, but not less than twice per day to control dust. C. Haul trucks and material stockpiles shall be covered. D. The construction area and surrounding streets shall be swept as necessary but not less than once daily. (Planning) Sewer: Comply with requirements of the West Valley Sanitation District for sewer hook up and utilities. (Planning) NPDES Permit: Applicant is advised that the Regional Water Quality Control Board will require that all construction on sites larger than five acres will require the project to be covered by an NPDES permit. Permit conditions may require construction and post-construction stormwater management plans. The applicant is responsible for obtaining this permit and paying associated fees and providing plans as required. Parking Lot Sweeping: Sweeping of the parking lot shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. Noise from sweeping equipment shall comply with the Campbell Noise Element Standards. Signing Program: Applicant to submit a signage program plan for approval of the Community Development Director for the project site, prior to the installation of any signage. Signing program to provide details and criteria for all exterior project signage and to include the following: a. Off-site directional signage for the project at the project entry at McGlincey Lane. b. Building/tenant identification signage. All signage to comply with Chapter 21.53 of the Campbell Municipal Code. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR FILE NO. PD 96-06 Page 7 PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS 25. Map Requirements: Prior to issuance of any building permits for the site, the applicant shall prepare and submit a Final Tract Map for review by City Engineer and recordation upon City approval. The current fee for processing the Final Tract Map is $1,380 plus $25/lot. Applicant shall provide all documents as required for review and approval of the Final Map. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the applicant must provide evidence from each utility and special district that they approve of the filing of the Final Map as submitted, that the easements shown on the map are adequate for each utility to serve the proposed development and that the procedure for abandonment of any existing easements is acceptable. 26. Dedication to City: Prior to approval of the final map, the applicant shall dedicate, acquire land for dedication and/or obtain dedications as necessary to accommodate construction of the required street improvements for: the 45' public street access to McGlincey Lane; the 50' public street within the site; the right of way needed to construct the intersection of these streets as shown on the approved tentative map; and the right of way/easements necessary (15' minimum) to construct the storm drain line through the development. Applicant shall prepare all documents necessary to obtain the dedications and/or remove any existing easements, provide all information required for reviewing these documents and shall pay all costs associated with obtaining the required dedications and/or easements and recordation of these dedications. Should it be necessary for the City to implement eminent domain proceedings in order to obtain right-of-way, the applicant shall pay all costs associated with the condemnation proceedings, including attorney's fees. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the applicant must determine the adequacy of the existing storm drainage easement along Paseo de Palomas. If an additional easement is needed, A minimum 15' storm easement will be required. If the existing easement is not adequate for construction of the proposed parallel/upsized storm drain from the site to the existing system in Union Avenue, the applicant shall provide all documents necessary for the City to obtain this easement. These documents shall include all engineering plans, plats and descriptions of the easement required for construction of this storm drain facility. 27. Storm Drain Area Fee: Prior to issuance of any building permits for the site, the applicant shall pay the required storm drain area fee of $2,500/acre. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR FILE NO. PD 96-06 Page 8 28. 29. Grading and Drainage Plan: Prior to approval of the final map or issuance of any building permits for the site, the applicant shall conduct hydrology studies as necessary, prepare grading and drainage plans and pay fees required to obtain necessary grading permits for the site. Grading plans shall include the procedure to be followed for abandonment of existing utility lines. Hydrology studies, grading and conceptual storm drainage plans shall include the public access road from McGlincey to the site. Storm drainage plans shall include existing invert and top of pipe elevations of the SCVWD culvert crossing the proposed roadway. Hydrology studies and storm drainage design shall include the drainage area bounded by Highway 17 to the west, Curtner Avenue to the south, the Mobile Home Park and westerly edge of the area drained and the existing storm drain in McGlincey Lane easterly of the development to the east. The storm drainage study for this drainage area shall include removal, replacement and/or installation of new storm lines as needed in McGlincey and Cristich Lanes to connect to a new and/or upsized storm drainage line required through the development, through the Paseo de Palomas private road and ultimately connecting to the existing storm drainage facilities in Union Avenue. Completion of this design is required to determine the appropriate size, location and invert elevations of the storm drainage facilities to be constructed on site that will allow for the future construction of the off-site storm drainage improvements in McGlincey Land and Cristich Lane. The applicant shall be required to construct only the portions of this storm drainage facility that are on-site and the connection to the existing system in Union Avenue through the Paseo de Palomas private road. The applicant shall provide a "stub- out" to Cristich Lane to allow for the future storm drain construction off-site. Standard Street Improvements: Prior to approval of the final map or issuance of any building permits for the site, the applicant shall prepare plans, pay fees, post securities and provide insurance as required to obtain an encroachment permit to construct public street improvements as required by the City Engineer. Public street improvement plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer licensed in the State of California and shall include but not be limited to the following unless otherwise directed by the City Engineer: Construction of the 45' public street access to McGlincey Lane to include: 30' of asphalt concrete roadway; a standard marginal 5' sidewalk and a 5' landscaping strip along the east side of the street; a 5" landscaping strip along the west side of the street; no parking signs, signing and striping, standard curb and gutter, storm drainage facilities and street lighting facilities along both sides of the street; construction of driveways as required for existing parcels; and all CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR FILE NO. PD 96-06 Page 9 conforms necessary to accommodate the existing improvements on the parcels south of the proposed development. · Construction of a 50' right of way public street along the southern frontage of the property to include: 30' of asphalt concrete roadway; standard driveway approaches for the entrances to the development; a standard marginal 5' sidewalk; a 5' landscape strip and a 10' Public Utilities Easement along the northern side of the street; a 10' landscaped strip along the southern side of the street; no parking signs, signing and striping, standard curb and gutter, storm drainage facilities and street lighting along both sides of the street. All improvements shall be designed and constructed to allow continuation of the improvements on Cristich Lane and an appropriate temporary terminus shall be designed and constructed at the western end of the new public street. · Construction of the intersections as shown on the approved tentative map and as directed by the City Engineer. Intersection improvements may include sidewalks, handicap ramps, signing, striping and increased street widths as shown on the approved tentative map. · All streets and their intersections with access points to the site shall be designed to accommodate all truck turning movements. Improvements at the west end of the new public street shall be constructed to allow for a future connection to Cristich Lane. Street trees shall be of a type that will not grow to encroach or interfere with public traffic. · Construction of a complete traffic signal system and equipment, signing, striping, utility relocation and related improvements to provide for signalization of the intersection of Union Avenue and McGlincey Lane. The traffic signal system and equipment shall include but not be limited to: vehicle detection equipment, traffic signal standards, street lighting and electrical services; pavement repair; signing and striping and other components as required by the City Traffic Engineer. · Reconfiguration of the intersection of McGlincey Lane and Curtner Avenue to provide for a free right turn lane from southbound McGlincey to westbound Curtner, a free left turn from westbound Curtner to northbound McGlincey and stop controls for westbound Curtner east of the intersection as directed by the City Engineer. Existing pavement in this intersection may need to be resurfaced to allow for the additional lanes and new striping pattern. · Provide signing, striping and pavement reconstruction at the intersection of McGlincey Land and the new public access road as necessary to provide lane configurations as directed by the City Engineer. · Construction of the storm drain facility extending from Cristich Lane through the development via storm drain easements to connect to the existing system in Union Avenue. · Construction of storm drain facilities for all public streets including the public access road from McGlincey. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR FILE NO. PD 96-06 Page 10 30. Completion of Public Street Improvements: Prior to issuance of occupancy for the site, all public street improvements as required by the encroachment permit must be completed and accepted by the City Engineer and the applicant must provide the one-year maintenance security. 31. Landscaping Maintenance Agreements: Prior to recordation of the final map, the applicant shall prepare and execute a landscape maintenance agreement requiring the development to post securities and maintain all landscaping, irrigation and irrigation facilities, walls and fences within all public areas, including the public access street to McGlincey Lane and the new public access road adjacent to the property. This agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to being executed by both parties and recorded by the City. 32. Underground Utilities: All new on-site utilities shall be installed underground per Section 20.36.150 of the Campbell Municipal Code for any new or remodeled buildings or additions. Applicant shall comply with all plan submittals, permitting and fee requirements of the serving utility company. Applicant shall submit a Utility Coordination Plan and Schedule for approval by the City Engineer for installation of all utilities. The plan shall minimize the damage to all public facilities. 33. Soils Report: Provide a soils report prepared by a registered Geotechnical or Civil Engineer. 34. Title Report: Provide a current Preliminary Title Report. 35. Street Name: The final map shall contain the City-approved street names for the new public streets. 36. Storm Water Management: Comply with the Regional Water Quality Control Board's industrial storm water general permit and California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook, prepared by Storm Water Quality Task Force, Santa Clara Valley Water District. 37. Coordination with Capital Improvement/Other Projects: Applicant shall coordinate with other city improvement projects within the vicinity. Location and installation of off-site improvements that may be required by other districts and utility companies shall be approved by the City. 38. Monumentation: Prior to recording the Final Map, the applicant shall provide security guaranteeing the cost of setting all monuments as shown on the Final Map. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR FILE NO. PD 96-06 Page 11 39. Street Improvement Agreement: Prior to the approval of the final map, the applicant shall execute a street improvement agreement and post securities to guarantee the installation of the required street improvements. 40. Notification to Adjacent Properties: Prior to any construction activity on the development, applicant shall notify all adjacent properties, including the management of the adjacent mobile home park. Notification shall include a contact number for the developer which can be used by the property owners during construction should questions or problems arise. FIRE REQUIREMENTS 41. Required Fire Flow: Required fire flow is 7,000GPM at 20 psi. residual pressure. This required fire flow is NOT available from area water mains and fire hydrant(s) which are spaced at the required spacing. This is based on the largest building of 100,000 square feet. 42. Automatic Fire Sprinkler System Required: Buildings requiring a fire flow in excess of 2,000 GPM shall be equipped throughout with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. The fire sprinkler systems shall conform to National Fire Protection Standard # 13, 1994 Edition, without the use of exceptions. 43. Final Required Fire Flow: Required fire flow may be reduced up to 50% in buildings equipped with automatic fire sprinkler systems, but can be no less than 1500 GPM. Therefore, the final required fire flow is 3500 GPM at 20 psi. residual pressure. This flow may be taken from any two fire hydrants, on or near the site, so long as they are spaced at a maximum spacing of 250 feet. 44. Public Fire Hydrant(s) Required: Provide 24 public fire hydrant(s) at location(s) to be determined jointly by the Central Fire District and the San Jose Water Company. Maximum hydrant spacing shall be 250 feet and the minimum single flow hydrant shall be 1500 GPM at 20 psi. residual pressure. 45. Fire Apparatus (Ladder Truck) Access Roads Required: Provide access roadways with a paved all weather surface and a minimum unobstructed width of 30 feet, vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, minimum circulating turning radius of 50 feet outside and 35 feet inside, a maximum slope of 10% and vehicle loading of 75,000 pounds. 46. Fire Ladder Truck Set Up Area(s) Option: Provide Fire Department Ladder Truck Set Up Areas with a minimum unobstructed width of 20 feet and a minimum length of 60 feet. Area shall support 75,000 pounds of gross vehicle weight. Area shall be paved or other engineered surfaces may be used with Fire Department approval. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR FILE NO. PD 96-06 Page 12 47. Parking Along Roadways: The required width of fire access roadways shall not be obstructed in any manner. Parking shall not be allowed along roadways less than 28 feet in width. Parking will be allowed along one side of the street for roadways 28-35 feet in width. For roadways equal to or greater than 36 feet, parking will be allowed on both sides of the roadway. Roadway widths shall be measured face to face of curb. Parking spaces are based on an 8 foot wide space. 48. Fire Lane Marking Required: Provide marking for all roadways within the project. Markings shall be per fire department specifications. Installations shall also conform to Local Government Standards and Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications A-6. 49. Timing of Required Roadway Installations: Required Roadway installations shall be in place, inspected and accepted by the Fire Department prior to the start of roof construction. Bulk combustible construction materials may not be deliveredto the construction site until installations are completed as stated above. 50. Timing of Required Hydrant Installations: Required Hydrant(s) installations shall be in place, inspected and accepted by the Fire Department prior to the start of roofing construction. Bulk combustible construction materials may not be delivered to the construction site until installations are completed as stated above. 51. Fire Department Key Box Required: Provide an approved fire department key box and appropriate building keys for each building. Installations shall conform with Fire District Standard Detail and Specification K-1. 52. Emergency Gate/Access Gate Requirements: When open, gates shall not obstruct any portion of the required access roadway or driveway width. If provided, all locks shall be fire department approved. Installations shall conform with Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications G-1. 53. Location of Required Fire Protection System(s) Equipment: Location of Fire Hydrants, Fire Sprinkler System(s) Post Indicator Valves (PIV), Fire Department Connections (FDC) and Fire Alarm Equipment shall be coordinated with the Fire Department and the Project Planners. 54. Fire Sprinkler System Alarm Device Monitoring Required: Provide approved type monitoring for all fire sprinkler system alarm devices for each building. 55. Emergency Gate/Access Gate Requirements: When open gates shall not obstruct any portion of the required access roadway or driveway width. If provided, all locks shall be fire department approved. Installations shall conform with Fire District Standard Details and Specifications G-1. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR FILE NO. PD 96-06 Page 13 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. Location of Required Fire Protection System(s) Equipment: Location of Fire Hydrants, Fire Sprinkler System(s) Post Indicator Valves (PIV), Fire Department Connections (FDC) and Fire Alarm Equipment shall be coordinated with the Fire Department and the Project Planners. Fire Sprinkler System Alarm Device Monitoring Required: Provide approved type monitoring for all fire sprinkler system alarm devices for each building. Required Plans and Documentation: Final Written Plan for Project Phasing shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review. Graffiti: Any graffiti occurring on the exterior of buildings shall be removed within 48 hours of its appears or request for removal by the City, and the applicant will make a best effort to seal off future access by graffiti taggers. Project Phasing: Project Construction to comply with the following project phasing:. Phase One: Building B and supporting improvements described in the applicant's project description. Construction to commence within one year of City Council approval and to be completed within one year after commencement. Phase Two: Building C and relate improvements. Construction to commence within one year and six months of City Council approval and to be completed within one year of commencement. · Phase Three: Buildings A, D, and E and related improvements. No restriction regarding period of commencement. Attachment #4 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF FILE NO. TS 97-01 SITE ADDRESS: 535 WESTCHESTER DRIVE/571 McGLINCEY LANE APPLICANTS: KEN NEUMEISTER/V~TA DEVELOPMENT P.C. MEETING: APRIL 22, 1997 Findings for Approval for a vesting Tentative Subdivision Map The Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to Application No. TS 97-01: The proposed lots are of sufficient size and shape to accommodate the intended use and the tentative subdivision map lays out the lots in a regular rectangular pattern accessible off of a public and private street pattern that is sufficient to accommodate the necessary vehicular movements. The proposed map is consistent with the development standards of the P-D (Planned Development) Zoning District and the Planned Development Application (PD 96-06). The proposed subdivision layout provides sufficient open space to accommodate the intended users of the facility and allows for access to sunlight. The design of the proposed subdivision allows for the appropriate grading and drainage facilities, public utility easements, improvement of utilities, and private driveway and access easements necessary to serve these properties. o The 1996 SEIR prepared for the development of the project identifies the impacts associated with the development of this site with five industrial buildings Based on the foregoing findings of fact, the Planning Commission further finds and concludes that, subject to the imposed conditions: The proposed subdivision is consistent with the policies and intent of the General Plan. ° The proposed subdivision does not impair the balance between the housing needs of the region and the public service needs of the residents and available fiscal and environmental resources; o The site is physically suitable for the proposed type of development and the proposed lot pattern. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF FILE NO. TS 96-03 Page 2 The design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities. The project, as currently presented and subject to the required conditions of approval will have a significant adverse impact on the environment. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR FILE NO. TS 97-01 SITE ADDRESS: 535 WESTCHESTER DRIVE/571 McGLINCEY LANE APPLICANTS: KEN NEUMEISTER/WTA DEVELOPMENT P.C. MEETING: APRIL 22, 1997 The applicants are hereby notified, as part of this application, that they are required to meet the following conditions in accordance with the Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the State of California. The lead department with which the applicant will work is identified. Additionally, the applicants are hereby notified that they are required to comply with all applicable Codes and Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the State of California that pertain to this development and are not contained herein. PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS Map Requirements: Prior to issuance of any building permits for the site, the applicant shall prepare and submit a Final Tract Map for review by City Engineer and recordation upon City approval. The current fee for processing the Final Tract Map is $1,380 plus $25/lot. Applicant shall provide all documents as required for review and approval of the Final Map. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the applicant must provide evidence from each utility and special district that they approve of the filing of the Final Map as submitted, that the easements shown on the map are adequate for each utility to serve the proposed development and that the procedure for abandonment of any existing easements is acceptable. Dedication to City: Prior to approval of the final map, the applicant shall dedicate, acquire land for dedication and/or obtain dedications as necessary to accommodate construction of the required street improvements for: the 45' public street access to McGlincey Lane; the 50' public street within the site; the right of way needed to construct the intersection of these streets as shown on the approved tentative map; and the right of way/easements necessary (15' minimum) to construct the storm drain line through the development and through the private Paseo de Palomas street. The preferred location for the storm drain easement is parallel to the sanitary sewer easement shown on the vesting tentative map. Applicant shall prepare all documents necessary to obtain the dedications and/or remove any existing easements, provide all information required for reviewing these documents and shall pay all costs associated with obtaining the required dedications and/or easements and recordation of these dedications. Should it be necessary for the City to implement eminent domain proceedings in order to obtain right-of-way, the applicant shall pay all costs associated with the condemnation proceedings, including attorney's fees. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR FILE NO. TS 97-01 Page 2 Prior to approval of the Final Map, the applicant must determine the adequacy of the existing storm drainage easement along Paseo de Palomas. A minimum 15' storm easement will be required. If the existing easement is not adequate for construction of the proposed parallel/upsized storm drain from the site to the existing system in Union Avenue, the applicant shall provide all documents necessary for the City to obtain this easement. These documents shall include all engineering plans, plats and descriptions of the easement required for construction of this storm drain facility. Storm Drain Area Fee: Prior to issuance of any building permits for the site, the applicant shall pay the required storm drain area fee of $2,500/acre. Grading and Drainage Plan: Prior to approval of the final map or issuance of any building permits for the site, the applicant shall conduct hydrology studies as necessary, prepare grading and drainage plans and pay fees required to obtain necessary grading permits for the site. Grading plans shall include the procedure to be followed for abandonment of existing utility lines. Hydrology studies, grading and storm drainage plans shall include the public access road from McGlincey to the site. Storm drainage plans shall include existing invert and top of pipe elevations of the SCVWD culvert crossing the proposed roadway. Hydrology studies and storm drainage design shall include the drainage area bounded by Highway 17 to the west, Curter Avenue to the south, the City limits to the east and the existing storm drain in McGlincey Lane easterly of the development to the north. The storm drainage plans for this drainage area shall include removal, replacement and/or installation of new storm lines as needed in McGlincey and Cristich Lanes to connect to a new and/or upsized storm drainage line required through the development, through the Paseo de Palomas private road and ultimately connecting to the existing storm drainage facilities in Union Avenue. Completion of this design is required to determine the appropriate size, location and invert elevations of the storm drainage facilities to be constructed on site that will allow for the future construction of the off-site storm drainage improvements in McGlincey Land and Cristich Lane. The applicant shall be required to construct only the portions of this storm drainage facility that are on-site and the connection to the existing system in Union Avenue through the Paseo de Palomas private road. The applicant shall provide a "stub- out" to Cristich Lane to allow for the future storm drain construction off-site. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR FILE NO. TS 97-01 Page 3 Standard Street Improvements: Prior to approval of the final map or issuance of any building permits for the site, the applicant shall prepare plans, pay fees, post securities and provide insurance as required to obtain an encroachment permit to construct public street improvements as required by the City Engineer. Public street improvement plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer licensed in the State of California and shall include but not be limited to the following unless otherwise directed by the City Engineer: Construction of the 45' public street access to McGlincey Lane to include: 30' of asphalt concrete roadway; a standard marginal 5' sidewalk and a 5' landscaping strip along the east side of the street; a 5" landscaping strip along the west side of the street; no parking signs, signing and striping, standard curb and gutter, storm drainage facilities and street lighting facilities along both sides of the street; construction of driveways as required for existing parcels; and all conforms necessary to accommodate the existing improvements on the parcels south of the proposed development. · Construction of a 50' right of way public street along the southern frontage of the property to include: 30' of asphalt concrete roadway; standard driveway approaches for the entrances to the development; a standard marginal 5' sidewalk; a 5' landscape strip and a 10' Public Utilities Easement along the northern side of the street; a 10' landscaped strip along the southern side of the street; no parking signs, signing and striping, standard curb and gutter, storm drainage facilities and street lighting along both sides of the street. All improvements shall be designed and constructed to allow continuation of the improvements on Cristich Lane and an appropriate temporary terminus shall be designed and constructed at the western end of the new public street. · Construction of the intersections as shown on the approved tentative map and as directed by the City Engineer. Intersection improvements may include sidewalks, handicap ramps, signing, striping and increased street widths as shown on the approved tentative map. · All streets and their intersections with access points to the site shall be designed to accommodate all truck turning movements. Improvements at the west end of the new public street shall be constructed to allow for a future connection to Cristich Lane. Street trees shall be of a type that will not grow to encroach or interfere with public traffic. · Construction of a complete traffic signal system and equipment, signing, striping, utility relocation and related improvements to provide for signalization of the intersection of Union Avenue and McGlincey Lane. The traffic signal system and equipment shall include but not be limited to: vehicle detection equipment, traffic signal standards, street lighting and electrical services; pavement repair; signing and striping and other components as required by the City Traffic Engineer. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR FILE NO. TS 97-01 Page 4 o · Reconfiguration of the intersection of McGlincey Lane and Curtner Avenue to provide for a free right turn lane from southbound McGlincey to westbound Curtner, a free left turn from westbound Curtner to northbound McGlincey and stop controls for westbound Curtner east of the intersection as directed by the City Engineer. Existing pavement in this intersection may need to be resurfaced to allow for the additional lanes and new striping pattern. · Provide signing, striping and pavement reconstruction at the intersection of McGlincey Land and the new public access road as necessary to provide lane configurations as directed by the City Engineer. · Construction of the storm drain facility extending from Cristich Lane through the development via storm drain easements to connect to the existing system in Union Avenue. · Construction of storm drain facilities for all public streets including the public access road from McGlincey. Completion of Public Street Improvements: Prior to issuance of occupancy for the site, all public street improvements as required by the encroachment permit must be completed and accepted by the City Engineer and the applicant must provide the one-year maintenance security. o Landscaping Maintenance Agreements: Prior to recordation of the final map, the applicant shall prepare and execute a landscape maintenance agreement requiring the development to post securities and maintain all landscaping, irrigation and irrigation facilities, walls and fences within all public areas, including the public access street to McGlincey Lane and the new public access road adjacent to the property. This agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to being executed by both parties and recorded by the City. o Underground Utilities: All new on-site utilities shall be installed underground per Section 20.36.150 of the Campbell Municipal Code for any new or remodeled buildings or additions. Applicant shall comply with all plan submittals, permitting and fee requirements of the serving utility company. Applicant shall submit a Utility Coordination Plan and Schedule for approval by the City Engineer for installation of all utilities. The plan shall minimize the damage to all public facilities. ° Soils Report: Provide a soils report prepared by a registered Geotechnical or Civil Engineer. 10. Title Report: Provide a current Preliminary Title Report. 11. Street Name: The final map shall contain the City-approved street names for the new public streets. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR FILE NO. TS 97-01 Page 5 12. Storm Water Management: Comply with the Regional Water Quality Control Board's industrial storm water general permit and California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook, prepared by Storm Water Quality Task Force, Santa Clara Valley Water District. 13. Coordination with Capital Improvement/Other Projects: Applicant shall coordinate with other city improvement projects within the vicinity. Location and installation of off-site improvements that may be required by other districts and utility companies shall be approved by the City. 14. Monumentation: Prior to recording the Final Map, the applicant shall provide security guaranteeing the cost of setting all monuments as shown on the Final Map. 15. Street Improvement Agreement: Prior to the approval of the final map, the applicant shall execute a street improvement agreement and post securities to guarantee the installation of the required street improvements. 16. Notification to Adjacent Properties: Prior to any construction activity on the development, applicant shall notify all adjacent properties, including the management of the adjacent mobile home park. Notification shall include a contact number for the developer which can be used by the property owners during construction should questions or problems arise. 17. CC&R's: Prior to recordation of the final map, applicant to submit a copy of the CC&R's for review and approval by the City Engineer and the Community Development Director. ~'=ttachment #6 WINC~S~R DRIVE-IN ~ITE PUBLIC PROCESS SUMMARy Since acquisition of the Drive-In site by the Redevelopment Agency in April, 1994, and on- going public process has ensued completing a land use alternatives study and analysis. This is a summary of actions that have occurred leading to a Disposition and Development Agreement. At its meeting on May 3, 1994, the Agency Board took action to approve an extensive public process obtaining community input to assist in determining the appropriate land uses on the site. The following issues, goals and objectives were identified as being key factors in the decision making process. Public Input: Assuring that the citizens of Campbell, as well as specific interests groups, have valuable input into the land use determination process. Return on Investment: What type of return on investment is the Agency seeking? Issues regarding capital and operating costs of any public uses and income from private uses must be investigated. Compatibility of Development: The appropriateness and compatibility with the existing uses in the McGlincey Lane area, including the adjacent mobile home park. Redevelopment Plan: Meeting the goals and objectives of the Redevelopment Plan for the McGlincey Lane Area. This should include how the development of the Site can help revitalize the area in accordance with the Plan. On and Off-Site Infrastructure: This includes meeting the On-Site infrastructure needs as well as exploring opportunities to address Off-Site needs as identified in the Redevelopment Plan. Off-Site needs include substandard storm drains, needed water service upgrades, potential upgrades of Cristich Lane to a public street, and traffic improvements in the area. Open Space Needs of the Community: The opportunity to help meet some of the City's open space needs must be investigated. Opportunities for Partnerships: The opportunity for public-public and public- private parmerships. There are a variety of partnerships with public and private entities that will need to be investigated. Site Ingress and Egress: Ingress and egress to the Site will be a major factor in developing the property. Associated Parcels: The use or disposition of the associated parcels (2 vacant lots, house and industrial building) will have to be determined. Interim vs. Lone Range Uses: Interim uses and long range permanent uses will have to be studied. Special Requests for Uses: Special interest groups requests for uses of the property will have to be studied. The Winchester Drive-In Council Subcommittee hosted individual meetings with a number of groups to receive early input into the decision making process. These meetings took place in the month of June 1994 and included the following groups: Campbell youth sports organizations including the Campbell Little League and Pony League; Chamber of Commerce; City Boards and Commissions; Pasco de Palomas Mobile Home Park; McGlincey Lane business and property owners and the general public, and Cambrian Community Council. Economic and Land Use Analysis The Agency also retained an economic and land use consulting team headed by Economics Research Associates (ERA) to provide expertise and evaluate opinions. ERA performed the detailed economic analysis with subconsultants Sasald Associates addressing land use and design issues and HMH Inc., Civil Engineers, examining infrastructure and access issues. Following meetings with individual interest groups, ERA began preparation of the Preliminary Evaluation of Winchester Drive-In Alternatives report. This initial document examined a broad range of potential uses for the Site as suggested by the public and city staff. They were: · Commercial Recreation · Storage · Industrial · Flea Market · Research and Development · Hotel · Residential · Office · Public Recreation · Cemetery · Auto Mall · Box Retail The report was intended to rank each alternative in terms of how well it satisfied Campbell's financial and non-financial objectives resulting in a short list of uses that seem most feasible for the Site. The report was completed in early September. On September 13, 1994, an Agency Board Study Session was held to review the report and to offer input. From the report and public input it was decided that four potential uses seemed to meet the Agency's objectives most closely, and therefore, had the greatest feasibility. These uses were: Commercial Recreation Light Industrial/Research and Development Residential Public Recreation The next step was for ERA to perform a detailed economic and land use analysis of each of these uses. In addition, a City Corporation Yard option was included in each alternative. ERA was also specifically asked to review the feasibility of the membership recreational facility called "Sports Mall." In January 1995, ERA completed the Detailed Evaluation of the Winchester Drive-In Alternatives. An Agency Board Study Session was held on February 2, 1995 to review the report. On March 2, 1995, a noticed public meeting was held to review the f'mdings of the report with the public and various interest groups. In summary, from ERA's report and the public meetings, the following conclusion was reached: Any use of the property will have to be very sensitive in design to the adjacent mobile home park in order to minimize any potential impacts of noise, lighting, etc. Off-site infrastructure improvements will be dependent to a large degree on the traffic generated from the site and the fire-flow requirements of buildings on the Site. The most significant costs involve traffic improvements on the surrounding streets and the potential upgrading of the water service to the site. These costs could approach almost $1 million. Preliminary review of traffic generation indicates that the existing circulation system should be able to accommodate any of the proposed uses. However, some of the uses may require such improvements as new signals and modifications to certain intersections. A public park or recreational use would be expensive as a result of no f'maneial return on the property. Construction and maintenance would cost an estimated $7 million to $9 million. The analysis of the non-profit, private recreational use of the property for Sports Mall raised questions regarding its financial feasibility. It was determined by ERA that the financial feasibility of the facility could not be determined until objective studies were completed regarding market demand, capacity of the facility, and detailed financing alternatives. The project as was conceptualized would require major funding from other public and private entities. Opposition was expressed to a potential eardroom on the property, particularly from the adjacent mobile home park and residents that live in the area south of the Site. Light industrial use of the property should net the largest return, in an amount of approximately $2.5 million after repayment of the loan and other Agency costs. A commercial recreation use with some industrial use could generate about $2.3 million. However, this use most likely would result in a ground lease of the property with the major profits not occurring for 15 years. Low density residential development of the Site, including a 5-acre passive neighborhood park, may net about $1 million. However, concerns regarding access to a residential development through an industrial area and potential incompatible land uses raises concerns with residential use at this location. The City Corporation Yard could be relocated to the Site at an undetermined cost. This assumes the sale and development of the existing corporation yard site and other factors. More detailed study is required before a final decision should be made. There is interest from other entities to consider a joint corporation yard. Placing percolation ponds on the property and trading land with the Santa Clara Valley Water District is not feasible. The Water District has concluded that the Site is not suitable for percolation ponds because of its proximity to Los Gatos Creek. Development Proposals After a year of community meetings and considering public input, on April 18, 1995, the Agency Board authorized the issuance of a Request For Proposal (RFP) to the development community for the development of the Winchester Drive-In Site. The Board identified the acceptable land uses to include the following: Light Industrial/Research and Development Institutional (hospitals and schools) Commercial Recreation Non-Profit/Public Recreation In January 1996, the Redevelopment Agency received seven development proposals for use of all or part of the Drive-In site. Three proposals were for light industrial development, three proposals were for various private recreational uses and one proposal was for a private school. On February 1, 1996, the Winchester Drive-In Sub-Committee scheduled a public meeting in which each proposal sponsor presented their respective proposals to the Sub-Committee, staff and the general public. On February 20, 1996, the Agency Board directed staff to initiate negotiations for the disposition and development of the Winchester Drive-In site with Davis and Associates, Orchard Properties, Valley Christian School, and WTA Development. During the month of March, staff held meetings with each of the proposed developers to determine if there was one development proposal that is financially feasible and has the potential of meeting the goals and objectives of the Redevelopment Agency for the McGlincey Lane area. StafFs meetings with each of the proposers were intended to attain specific information about each of the proposals that would help evaluate their merit. Based on direction provided by the Agency Board established throughout the public review process, staff identified the following criteria to be considered in evaluating the proposals: The developer and the project should present minimal financial risk to the Agency. This means the developer must be financially capable to purchase the property for the amount stated, contingencies to acquisition must be reasonable, and the developer must be able to deliver the development project as stated. The sale of the Drive-In site should, at minimum, generate adequate proceeds to retire the Agency's debt to the City net of any Agency costs and obligations associated with the development of the property. The project should serve as a catalyst for furthering redevelopment efforts in the McGlincey Lane area both the on-site development of the site and off-site improvements that will benefit the area. Any development proposal must assure compatibility with the Pasco de Palomas Mobile Home Park. On May 7, 1996, the Agency Board continued consideration of an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with WTA Development, and took the following action: Appointed a Board sub-committee including Chairman Dougherty and Boardmember Watson who along with staff would meet with David Mariani representing the Sports Mall Task Force to discuss the financial feasibility of developing the Sports Mall proposal on the Winchester Drive-In site; The sub-committee and staff were also directed to include in the meeting County Supervisor Jim Beall, Open Space Authority Representative Gametta Annable, and representatives from County Parks to determine their position on the Sports Mall proposal and whether there was County and/or Open Space District funds available to help finance this project. generated through lease agreements with vendors and hosting sports tournaments and league play. Property Acquisition Mr. Mariani proposes that the County acquire the entire site for $3.5 million and serve the capacity as a "co-developer". The contingencies to acquisition, as proposed by Mr. Mariani, are as follows: All cash pumhase to be funded by the County. County shall commit funding within six months Necessary off-site public improvements to be financed through an assessment or community facilities district area wide. The Drive-In site assessment would be no greater than $600,000. Grants and donations must fund no less than $4 million dollars to help fund development costs. City must grant entitlements. Project Financing According to Mr. Mariani, the estimated land acquisition and on-site development costs are approximately $11 million. He proposes $3.5 million coming from County' funds, $4 million from grants and donations (of which $900,000 will come from the Griffin Foundation), and approximately $4 million financed through lending institutions. Estimating $2 million for off-site improvements, Mr. Mariani proposes that the City establish an assessment district area wide, with the Drive-In site being assessed $600,000 and other property owners in the area would pay the difference in assessments. These improvements would include extending water to the site and implementing traffic mitigation measures. On June 4, 1996 the Agency Board authorized staff to enter into an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with WTA Development to negotiate a Disposition and Development Agreement for the sale and development of the Drive-In site as a research and development business park. The Sports Mall proposal shall be evaluated based on the four criteria established by the Board that the other proposals were evaluated against. Report back to the full Board in one month. On May 22, 1995, a meeting was scheduled that included the following: Chairman Bob Dougherty Boardmember leanette Watson Gametta Annable, Open Space District Mark Ochenduszko, City Manager Larry Coons, Open Space District Mojgan Khalili, Aide to Supervisor Jim Beall David Mariani, Sports Mall Gordon Reynolds, Sports Mall Suzanne Waher, Sports Mall Paul Romero, County Parks Director Mike Braumburger, County Parks Bob Kass, Public Works Director Kirk Heinrichs, Redevelopment Drew Shagrin, Redevelopment Counsel At this first meeting, Mr. Mariani discussed two preliminary proposals to purchase the Drive-In site. "Option A" proposed purchasing about 9 acres of the site for $7.50 a square foot and developing, maintaining, and leasing the balance of the site from the City for sports fields at a nominal fee. "Option B" proposed that the County would purchase the entire site for $3.5 million, and Griffin Foundation would develop a sports facility. Having the opportunity to listen and discuss issues and concerns from the Board sub-committee, City staff and County representatives, Mr. Mariani returned on May 29th to the group with a more specific "best offer" proposal that included a preliminary expense and revenue proforma. County Supervisor Jim Beall attended the May 29th meeting. David Mariani's Proposal David Mariani proposes a three way partnership between Griff'm Foundation, the City, and the County to develop a commercial sports recreational facility that would offer a variety of indoor/outdoor sports activities for a membership and/or user fee. The specific elements of the proposal are as follows: Pro|ect Description Construct 116,000 square feet of indoor facilities that would house volleyball, basketball, aerobics, gymnastics, rolIerblades, roller hockey, and exercise/fimess facilities. These buildings and the parking area would account for approximately 9 acres. The building pad would be in a "V"shape with two rectangular warehouse type buildings forming the "V". At the center of the "V" would be retail concessions and vendors occupying approximately 8,800 square feet. Parking would circle the entire site. The balance of the site would be developed for soccer and softball fields, a golf driving range, and bike track. A monthly fee of $5 for juniors and seniors, and $10 for adults would be charged for entrance into the facilities. If a user desires to participate in certain organized leagues or classes, additional fees could be charged. However, principal revenue will be I~'''l II ! Attachment #8 ® ® ® ® ® ® ® -- O0 ®~1-1-1-1 I I oo Attachment #10 CC Resolution ( gF. IR. 1 CITY OF CAMPBELL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY RESOLUTION NO. 1997-1 CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL RESOLUTION ~ NO. 9181 A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL CERTIFYING A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND MAKING FINDINGS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT IN THE CONSIDERATION OF A PROJECT TO REDEVELOP THE FORMER WINCHESTER DRIVE-IN SITE RESOLVED, by the City of Campbell Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") and the City CoUncil (the "City Council") of the City of Campbell (the "City"), that: WHEREAS, the following recitals summarize information more fully set forth in the attached Exhibit A, which is incorporated in this Resolution by this reference. Various capitalized terms used in this Resolution are more fully defined in Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Agency is responsible for redevelopment of the Central Campbell Project Area.(the "Project Area") pursuant to the Second Amended and Restated Central Campbell Redevelopment Plan (the "Redevelopment Plan"), as amended; and WHEREAS, the 23.5 acre former Winchester Drive-In Site (the "Property") constitutes one of the most underutilized and blighted properties in the Project Area; and WHEREAS, in June 1992 the City Council certified an environmental impact report (the "1992 EIR") that evaluated the environmental impacts of development of a proposed destination retail center on the Property; and WHEREAS, in April 1994 the Agency acquired the Property and thereafter conducted land use and economic feasibility studies and a developer selection process, from which WTA Development was selected to negotiate a disposition and development agreement (a "DDA") for development of the Property; and WHEREAS, WTA Development has proposed development on the Property of an approximately 325,000 square foot high-end research and development and light industrial business park with related on-site and off-site improvements (the "Project"); and lo3oQ7~5o 1~3~96 -1- WHEREAS, Agency staff has negotiated a DDA whereby the Agency would sell the Property to a corporate affiliate of WTA Development (the "Developer") and the Developer would develop the Project on the Property; and WHEREAS, the DDA conditions the sale of the Property and the development of the Project on the prior procurement by the Developer from the.City of all necessary land use entitlements and approvals (the "Planning Approvals"); and WHEREAS, because the Project contains land uses that vary from the land uses evaluated in the 1992 EIR, the Agency and the City have caused preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (the "1996 SEIR") in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Local CEQA Implementing Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the 1996 SEIR builds upon and incorporates analysis from the 1992 EIR that remains valid, while providing new analysis of environmental impacts that will be different as a result of the change in land use proposed for the Project; and WHEREAS, the 1996 SEIR has been expressly prepared to serve as the CEQA document for Agency and City Council consideration of the DDA and the Planning Approvals; and WHEREAS, the Agency serves as the "lead agency" and the City Council serves as a "responsible agency" under CEQA in the preparation and certification of the 1996 SEIR; and WHEREAS, through this concurrent resolution, the Agency and the City Council desire to comply with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Local CEQA Implementing Guidelines in the consideration, certification, and use of the 1996 SEIR in connection with their consideration of the DDA and the Planning Approvals. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Agency and the City Council find that the above recitals and the information contained in Exhibit A are accurate. 2. The Agency and the City Council hereby find and certify that the 1996 SEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the Local CEQA Implementing Guidelines; that the 1996 SEIR adequately addresses the environmental issues of the Project; and that the Agency and the City Council have reviewed and considered the information contained in the 1996 SEIR prior to acting on the Project and the ]030Q7~S0 ~3~96 -2- discretionary approvals necessary to the disposition of the Property and the development of the Project. 3. The Agency and the City Council hereby find and determine that the 1996 SEIR reflects the independent judgment of the Agency and the City Council. 4. The Agency and the City Council hereby identify the significant effects, adopt the mitigation measures, adopt the monitoring program to be implemented for such mitigation measures, and make the findings set forth in derail'in the attached Exhibit A. The statements, findings and determinations set forth in Exhibit A are based on the above certified 1996 SEIR and other information available to the Agency and the City Council, and are made in compliance with Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines and Section 21081(a) of CEQA. 5. As detailed in Exhibit A, approval and implementation of the Project may have a significant unavoidable environmental impact related to exceedance of carbon monoxide standards at two intersections and, as a result, the Agency and the City Council, as applicable, may approve the DDA and the Planning Approvals only if, in connection with such approvals, the Agency and the City Council, as applicable, make a statement of overriding considerations in accordance with Sections 15092 and 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines and Section 21081(b) of CEQA. 6. Based on the information set forth in Section V.B of Exhibit A, the Agency and the City Council find pursuant to 14 California Code of Regulations Section 753.5(c) that, considering the record as a whole, approval and implementation of the Project involves no potential for adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on vegetation or wildlife, and that therefore no fee is required in connection with the filing of a Notice of Determination with respect to the 1996 SEIR, the DDA (if approved), or the Planning Approvals (if approved). 7. The City Manager and the Redevelopment Manager are authorized and directed to file the appropriate Notices of Determination and Notices of Fee Exemption in connection with the 1996 SEIR, the DDA (if approved), and the Planning Approvals (if approved). 8. This Resolution shall take immediate effect upon its adoption. 1030QT.P50 12/30196 -- 3 -- APPROVAL OF AGENCY: · Passed and adopted this 7th day of January, 1997 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: AGENCY BOARD MEMBERS: Watsbn,'Furtado, Conant AGENCY BOARD MEMBERS: Dougherty, Dean AGENCY BOARD MEMBERS: None APPROVED: BARBARA CONANT, CHAIRPERSON APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL: Passed and adopted this 7th day of January, 1997 by the following vote: AYES-. COUNCILMEMBERS: Watson, Furtado, Conant NOES-. COUNCILMEMBERS: Dougherty, Dean ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None APPROVED: BARBARA CONANT, MAYOR ATTEST: An~ Bybee, City ~lerk 103OQ7.PSO 12/30/96 -4- 'I'HE FOREGOING iNSTRUMENT AND GORRECT COPY OF THE ON FILE tN THIS OFFICE. A'T~.~r: ANNE ByEsEE, C11'~ EXHIBIT A ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, ADOPTION OF 'MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING PROGRAM, AND FINDING OF FACTS FOR THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT OF THE WINCHESTER DRIVE-IN SITE AND THE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED IN CONNECTION THEREWITH INFORMATION A. project Description. The project (the "Project") under consideration by the City of Campbell Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") and the City Council of the City of Campbell (the "City Council") is an approximately 325,000 square foot research and development/light industrial park on the 23.5 acre former Winchester Drive-In Site (the "Property") within the Central Campbell Redevelopment Project Area (the "Project Area") in the City of Campbell, California (the "City"). The Project square footage will be divided among several buildings, which may range in size from approximately 40,000 square feet to approximately 100,000 square feet. The buildings may be one or two stories in height, and likely will be constructed of tilt-up concrete with wood and/or stucco cladding. The proposed site plan of the Project is contained in the 1996 SEIR (defined below). Development of the Project will require removal of the deteriorated asphalt paving currently on the Property, and site preparation activities such as minor excavation, grading, and possible importation of engineered fill. Off-site improvements will include extension of water and storm drainage facilities to the Property, traffic mitigation improvements to affected intersections in the area, and access street improvements. B. Backqround; The 1992 FIR. The Property has been vacant for the past 14 years, and has been under various ownerships. In 1991, Western Federal Savings (then the owner of the Property) submitted a Planned Development permit application (PD91-04) to the City to construct a 245,000 square foot destination retail center on the Property. At the same time, the City and Agency initiated an amendment to the Central Campbell Redevelopment Plan to allow for the addition of the McGlincey Lane Expansion Area, within which the Property is located, to the Project Area. The PD permit application for the Property and the redevelopment area expansion were evaluated together under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., "CEQA") in an EIR during 1991-92 (SCH#91053013) (the "1992 EIR" ) . The 1992 EIR consists of a Draft EIR dated September 1991 (SCH$91053013) (the "1992 Draft EIR"), a Final EIR dated March 1992 (containing responses to comments received on the Draft EIR) (the "1992 Final EIR"), and Exhibit A to the 1992 Resolution (described below) (containing certain text additions to the foregoing documents). The 1992 EIR evaluated the then-proposed destination retail development of the Property at a project level of detail and evaluated the other projects proposed to be undertaken in the McGlincey Lane Expansion Area at a program level of detail. The 1992 EIR was certified by the City Council and Agency in a concurrent resolution on June 2, 1992 (Resolution Nos. 8322 and 1992-19, respectively) (the "1992 Resolution"). Findings were contained in the 1992 Resolution in accordance with CEQA, including a Statement of Overriding Considerations for impacts pertaining to regional air quality. The destination retail project for the Property evaluated in the 1992 EIR was not developed. The Agency purchased the Property in April 1994. Shortly thereafter, the Agency began a process to determine the optimum land use for the Property. In June 1994, a series of public meetings were held to receive early input into the decision making process. From those meetings a variety of ideas for the Property were obtained, including light industrial, commercial recreation, non-profit recreation, and other uses. These potential uses were then evaluated by an economic consulting firm, Economics Research Associates, to determine the financial feasibility of these uses. In August 1995, the Agency distributed a Request for Proposals (RFP) package to developers, corporations, or other parties that might be interested in purchasing and developing all or a portion of the Property. The Agency received eight proposals from developers. After evaluation of the proposals, the Agency entered into an exclusive negotiating rights agreement with the selected developer, WTA Development of Palo Alto. In December 1996, Agency staff concluded negotiations with WTA Development on the proposed terms of a disposition and development agreement (a "DDA") which was presented for consideration by the Agency and City Council at a duly noticed public hearing on January 7, 1997. C. The 1996 SEIR. The Project as proposed by WTA Development and contemplated in the DDA differs in land use from the destination retail project that was proposed and evaluated in the 1992 EIR in terms of impacts related to traffic/circulation/parking, noise, air quality following ;o3o~.~o ~3~96 -2- buildout, land use, water supply, storm drainage, aesthetics, and alternatives. However, much of the information and analysis contained in the 1992 EIR remains valid for the currently- proposed Project, particularly with regard to impacts involving air quality during construction, hazardous materials, cultural resources, geology, drainage/flooding, biological resources, cumulative impacts, and growth inducing impacts. Under these circumstances, the Agency and the City have determined that a Supplemental EIR (the "1996 SEIR") is required, in accordance with Section 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines (defined below), to build upon the relevant aspects of the 1992 EIR and address the different environmental impacts that may result from the change in the nature of the Project from the project that was evaluated in the 1992 EIR. The determination to prepare the 1996 SEIR is also consistent with the requirements of the 1992 Resolution calling for performance .of further appropriate environmental analysis when a specific project proposal for the Property is presented for Agency and City Council consideration. The 1996 SEIR incorporates by reference the 1992 EIR. The 1996 SEIR consists of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report dated October 1996 (SCH#96082018) (the "Draft 1996 SEIR") and a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report dated December 1996 (the "Final 1996 SEIR") (containing responses to comments on, and making certain revisions to, the Draft 1996 SEIR), as more fully described below. The 1996 SEIR has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the State CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et ~eq., with particular reference to Section 15163), and the City's and Agency's Local CEQA Implementation Guidelines. CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines authorize preparation of a supplement to an EIR when certain conditions are present, and when limited additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation. A supplement to an EIR must be given the same kind of notice and review as is given to an initial EIR. To that end, the Agency issued a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") for the Draft 1996 SEIR to the State Clearinghouse and others on August 7, 1996. The required 30-day notice period for the NOP ended on September 6, 1996. In addition, the Agency/City conducted a public scoping meeting for the Project on July 24, 1996. The Draft 1996 SEIR was circulated.from October 2 to November 16, 1996 to various Federal, State, and local agencies ~o~oQe.PSO 1~3~ -3- for their review and comment. The Draft 1996 SEIR was also provided to the Campbell Library, and was made available to members of the general public. A public meeting on the Draft 1996 SEIR was held on October 29, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. at the Campbell City Hall Council Chambers. Approximately 10 members of the public were in attendance at the workshop. The Final 1996 SEIR was made available to the public and distributed to the public agencies that commented on the Draft 1996 SEIR on December 18, 1996. The Final 1996 SEIR contains responses to 12 letters received during the Draft 1996 SEIR comment period and to comments made at the October 29, 1996 public workshop on the Draft 1996 SEIR. The Final 1996 SEIR also contains text revisions to the Draft 1996 SEIR made a result of responding to the comments received. The 1996 SEIR (with the 1992 EIR incorporated by reference) came before the Agency and the City Council on January 7, 1997 at a duly noticed joint public hearing, at which time the Agency and City Council heard oral testimony and received written communications. D. Use of 1996 SEIR; Imposition of Mitiqation Measures. Two primary sets of local discretionary approvals are required before the Project may be developed. The first set of approvals consists of approval by the Agency, and consent by the City Council (with specified findings under the Community Redevelopment Law), of the DDA. The DDA sets forth the terms and conditions under which the Agency will sell the Property to WTA Campbell Technology Park LLC (the "Developer"), a corporate affiliate of WTA Development, and under which the Developer will develop the Project on the Property. A primary condition to the sale of the Property is that the Developer must first obtain a set of planning approvals from the City (the "Planning Approvals"). Approval of the DDA is scheduled for consideration at the duly noticed January 7, 1997 joint public hearing described above. The Planning Approvals constitute a second set of local discretionary approvals necessary to development of the Project. The Planning Approvals may include a proposed General Plan amendment, a Zoning Ordinance amendment, approval of a planned development permit, approval of a vesting tentative map, architectural design and site layout approval, and a determination that disposition of the Property under the DDA is consistent with General Plan (as amended). The Planning Approvals will be considered for approval or denial by the City lO3OQ6.p5o 12/~o/~6 -4 - Council upon recommendation of the Planning Commission (except for the General Plan consistency finding, which may be made directly by the Planning Commission). It is anticipated that the PlanningApprovals will be processed for final consideration in the first half of 1997. Approval of the DDA alone will not result in disposition of the Property to the Developer or development of the Project, and does not affect the City Council's discretion in granting or denying the Planning Approvals. As noted above, granting of the PlanningApprovals is an absolute condition to disposition of the Property and development of the Project under the DDA. However, since approval of the DDA is the first step in a sequence of local discretionary approvals that could foreseeably result in disposition of the Property and development of the Project, the Agency and the City have determined, consistent with sound'CEQA principles, to prepare, consider and certify the 1996 SEIR (with the accompanying findings set forth in this Exhibit A) at the earliest feasible time--that is, in connection with consideration of approval of the DDA. The 1996 SEIR is then expectedto serve as the CEQA document for consideration of the Planning Approvals for the Project. Because the Agency will consider the first local discretionary approval (approval of the DDA), the Agency has served as the "lead agency" under CEQA for the 1996 SEIR. Because the City Council will consider subsequent local discretionary approvals (the Planning Approvals), the City council has served as a "responsible agency" under CEQA for the 1996 SEIR. In Section IV of this Exhibit A, the Agency and the City Council adopt specified mitigation measures to address potentially significant environmental impacts of the Project. If the Agency and City Council approve the DDA in their policy discretion and if the City Council and Planning Commission approve the Planning Approvals in their policy discretion, these adopted mitigation measures will be imposed through conditions of the Planning Approvals. Imposition of EIR mitigation measures through conditions of land use approval is the standard procedure in Campbell, and most localities, for imposing mitigation measures related to specific projects. If the DDA and/or PlanningApprovals are not approved, so that the Project cannot be implemented without reprocessing and further public action, the mitigation measures set forth in this Exhibit A would, of course, become moot. Nothing in this Exhibit A or the Resolution to which it is attached will affect the Agency's, the City Council's (or the Planning Commission's) discretion, as applicable, in approving ~o~o~,so 12/3o/96 - 5- the DDA, in granting or denying the Planning Approvals, or in imposing conditions of approval in addition to the mitigation measures adopted below. II. THE RECORD The record (the "Record") of the Agency and the City Council relating to the Project and its potential environmental effects includes: ae The 1996 SEIR, consisting of the Draft 1996 SEIR and the Final 1996 SEIR; The 1992 EIR, consisting of the 1992 Draft EIR, the 1992 Final EIR and Exhibit A of the 1992 Resolution; C. The 1992 Resolution; D. The DDA; The summary of the DDA prepared by Agency staff in December 1996 pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33433 (the "Section 33433 Summary"). Detailed Evaluation of Winchester Drive-In Site Alternatives, prepared for the Agency by Economic Research Associates, dated February, 1995 (the "ERA Alternatives Study"); Ge Staff memoranda to the Agency Board dated February 20, 1996 and April 16, 1996 discussing land use alternatives and developer selection for the Property (the "Staff Reports on Alternatives"). The staff report accompanying this Resolution, the 1996 SEIR and the DDA dated January 7, 1997 (the "DDA Staff Report"); The Second Amended and Restated Central Campbell Redevelopment Plan '(the "Redevelopment Plan"); Je The 1992 Report to City Council on the Redevelopment Plan, and supplements thereto (the "Report to Council"); Thc City of Campbell Redevelopment Agency AB 1290 Implementation Plan and AB 315 Affordable Housing Production Plan for the Central Campbell Redevelopment I03OQ6.P$O 1~3~ -6- Le Me Project Area, adopted by the Agency on November 15, 1994 pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33490 (the "Implementation Plan"). Documentary and oral evidence received by the Planning Commission, the Agency and the City Council during public hearings and meetings on the Project and the 1996 SEIR; Matters of common knowledge to theAgency and the City Council which they have considered, such as the City of Campbell General Plan (the "General Plan"), and prior resolutions and ordinances of the Agency and the City. III. OVERALL FINDINGS Before the Agency and the City Council may act upon the discretionary approvals described in Section I.D above, CEQA mandates that the Agency, as lead agency, and the City Council, as a responsible agency, consider the Record and make certain findings required by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)'and Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The 1996 SEIR (which incorporates the 1992 EIR) identifies potentially significant impacts on the environment which are likely to result from development of the Project. Based on the following findings as to each such impact, the Agency and the City Council conclude that changes or alterations have been adopted and will be incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen all potentially significant environmental impacts identified by the 1996 SEIR, except for the local air quality impact identified in Section IV.C.2 and in Section VI below. Further, as required by Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, a monitoring program is adopted for the mitigation measures stated in and required by this Exhibit A. The purposes of the findings contained in this Exhibit A include: (1) certifying the 1996 SEIR prepared for the discretionary approvals described in Section I.D above; (2) briefly describing and summarizing the potentially signifi- cant environmental impacts of the Project; (3) describing mitiga- tion measures for, and alternatives to, the Project; and (4) presenting the Agency's and the City's findings as to the impacts of the Project after adoption or rejection of the mitigation measures and alternatives. In addition, Section V of this Exhibit A adopts mitigation measures for Certain other environmental impacts that were addressed in the 1996 SEIR (including the 1992 EIR incorporated by reference), but 1O3OQ6.~o 1~3~ -7- determined not to be potentially significant adverse environmental impacts. The description of impacts contained in this Exhibit A is intended as a summary only. The 1996 SEIR, and the documents which it incorporates (including the 1992 EIR), describe these impacts in detail. The Agency and City Council certify that the 1996 SEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and that it was presented to, and reviewed and considered by, the Agency and City Council prior to acting on the discretionary approvals related to the Project. In so certifying, the.Agency and the City Council recognize that there may be "differences" among and between the information and opinions offered in the documents and testimony that make up the Record. Therefore, by these findings (including Exhibit A and the resolution adopting this Exhibit A), the Agency and the City Council adopt the clarifications and/or modifica- tions of the 1996 SEIR as set forth in these findings, and determine that these findings shall control and that the 1996 SEIR shall be deemed to be certified subject to the determinations reached by the Agency and the City Council in these findings, which are based on the substantial evidence in the Record described above. IV. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT In compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) and Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines, this Section IV analyzes and makes required findings regarding the potentially significant environmental impacts of the Project as identified in the 1996 SEIR, including the potentially significant impacts identified in the 1992 EIR that have been found to remain relevant to the currently contemplated Project on the Property. The following analysis and findings are based on substantial evidence in the Record. For each identified potentially significant environmental impact, this Section IV: (1) summarizes the impact, (2) describes and adopts applicable mitigation measures for the impact, (3) adopts a monitoring program for the adopted mitigation measure(s) in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, and (4) makes one of the findings required by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The proposed monitoring programs are detailed in Attachment i to this Exhibit A. The identified impacts are considered by major impact category, generally in the order set forth in the 1996 SEIR. lO~OQ6~5o 1~ -8- TRAFFIC/CIRCULaTION/PARKING Intersection. Traffic Impact at Union Avenue/McGlincev LaDe a. Potentially Siqnificant Impact. operating at a level of service ("LOS") E under the background traffic conditions, the Union Avenue/McGlincey Lane intersection would operate at a projected LOS F under the Project condition, constituting a significant impact under the traffic impact criteria defined in Section 3.1 of the Draft 1996 SEIR. Under the existing roadway conditions and with the projected Project condition traffic, it is anticipated that the eastbound movements of this intersection would experience excessive delay. The signal warrants analysis contained in Section 3.1 of the Draft 1996 SEIR also indicates the need for installation of a traffic signal at this intersection. b. Mitigation Measures. (1) A traffic signal will be installed at this intersection following Project completion. (2) An exclusive eastbound left-turn lane will be provided from McGlincey Lane to Union Avenue. (3) Three parking spaces will be removed at the east leg of the intersection (on the south side of McGlincey Lane). (This mitigation measure will, in turn, cause a parking impact described in Section IV.A.4 below.) c. Monitoring Proaram. The monitoring program identified under Category I.A.1 (Union/McGlincey Intersection) in Attachment i to this Exhibit A is hereby incorporated by reference as the monitoring program for the above described mitigation measures. d. Findinq. The above mitigation measures and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based on the information and analysis in Sections 1.2.1 and 3.1 of the Draft 1996 SEIR, the finding is made that adoption of the above mitigation measures and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant traffic impact of the Project on the Union Avenue/McGlincey Lane intersection. With the implementation of the traffic signal and eastbound turn lane measures, the Union Avenue/McGlincey Lane intersection is projected to operate at LOS D or better under Project conditions, thus resulting in an acceptable service level under the traffic ~o~oQ6~so 1~3~ -9- impact criteria employed by the City of Campbell and City of San Jose. 2. Traffic Impact at Camden/Union Intersection. a. potentially Significant Impact. Operating at LOS E (or LOS F based on the City of San Jose level of service methodology) under the background and Project conditions, this intersection would experience a 1.35 percent increase in critical movement volumes. As indicated in Section 3.1 of the Draft 1996 SEIR, the City of San Jose defines a project as having a significant impact if the addition of the Project traffic increases the critical movement volumes by more than one percent at an intersection operating at LOS E or F under the background condition. b. Mitigation Measures. The northbound approach (on Union Avenue) will be restriped to provide an exclusive right-turn lane. c. Monitoring Program. The monitoring program identified under Category I.A.1 (Camden/Union Intersection) in Attachment I to this Exhibit A is hereby incorporated by reference as the monitoring program for the above described mitigation measure. d. Finding. The above mitigation measure and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based on the information and analysis in Sections 1.2.1 and 3.1 of the Draft 1996 SEIR, the finding is made that adoption of the above mitigation measure and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant traffic impact of the Project on the Camden Avenue/Union Avenue intersection. Level of service and traffic operations at the Camden Avenue/Union Avenue intersection can be improved by re-striping the northbound approach of the intersection and adding a new exclusive right-turn lane. Addition of the northbound right-turn lane will result in improvement of LOS F to LOS E at this intersection, based on the City of San Jose level of service methodology, resulting in less than i percent increase in critical movement volumes. This result is within the acceptable service level range under the traffic impact criteria employed by the City of Campbell and the City of San Jose. e Intersection. Traffic Impact at McGlincey Lane/Curtner AveDu- a. Potentially Significant Impact. The results of signal warrant analysis indicate that signal warrant 11, Peak lO3OQ6.P5O 12,'30/96 - 10- Hour Volume Warrant, is met at the McGlincey Lane/Curtner Avenue intersection. (Section 4 (Traffic/Circulation subsection) of the 1992 Draft EIR also indicated the. need for improvement of this intersection.) b. Mitigation Measures. Instead of a traffic signal, traffic operations will be improved through a reconfiguration of the intersection, generally as described in Section 4 (Traffic/Circulation subsection) of the 1992 Draft EIR and Section 3.1 of the Draft 1996 SEIR% to accommodate through traffic from Curtner Avenue eastbound to McGlincey Lane northbound. Details of the intersection reconfiguration design are still being developed. c. Monitoring Program. The monitoring program identified under Category I.A.3 in Attachment I to this Exhibit A is hereby incorporated by reference as the monitoring program for the above described mitigation measure. d. Finding. The above mitigation measure and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based on the information and analysis in Section 4 (Traffic/Circulation subsection) of the 1992 Draft EIR and Section 3.1 of the Draft 1996 SEIR, the finding is made that adoption of the above mitigation measure and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant traffic impact of the Project and surrounding uses on the McGlincey Lane/Curtner Avenue intersection. The proposed intersection reconfiguration will effectively redirect traffic in a manner that will substantially lessen the identified traffic impact at this intersection. 4. Parking Impact. a. potentially Significant Impact. The mitigation measure described in Section IV.A.i.b.(3) above will result in the removal of three parking spaces near the intersection of Union Avenue and McGlincey Lane. b. Mitigation Measure. The City will provide at least three replacement parking spaces on McGlincey Lane by removing existing unwarranted parking restrictions and red curbs in the area. c. Monitoring pro~ram. The monitoring program identified under Category I.A.2 in Attachment i to this Exhibit A is hereby incorporated by reference as the monitoring program for the above described mitigation measure. ~O3OQ6~,so 12/3o/96 -- 11 - d. Finding. The above mitigation measure and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based on the information in Sections 1.2.1 and 3.1 of the Draft 1996 SEIR, the finding is made that adoption of the above mitigation measure and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant parking impact of the Project. Provision of replacement parking on a 1:1 or better basis in the same vicinity as the lost spaces will retain the same level of off-site parking as existed prior to reconfiguration of the McGlincey Lane/Union Avenue intersection. B. NOISE 1, Construction Noise Impact. a. potentially Significant Impact. Construction of the Project would require some grading, limited excavation, and the use of other equipment typically necessary during construction of commercial and industrial projects. Typical construction noise levels are shown in Figure 3-13 of the Draft 1996 SEIR. These are maximum noise levels generated by each individual piece of construction equipment at a distance of 50 feet. Noise levels at the mobile home park would be highest when construction takes place near the mobile home park adjoining the Property to the east. Noise levels would be reduced when construction takes place further away from this Property boundary. Average noise levels (L.~ during busy construction periods typically range from 75-85 aecibels ("dBA") at a distance of 50 feet from the center of construction activity. Average noise levels would, therefore, be audible above ambient noise levels, and above a 60 dBA threshold typically used to assess speech and activity interference. b. Mitigation Measures. (1) Noise generating construction .activities will be restricted to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Director. (2) Ail internal combustion engine-driven equipment will be maintained in a good working condition, and fitted with mufflers which are also in good condition. (3) Noise sources, such as air compressors and concrete pumpers, will be located as far as possible from the nearest residences. lO3OQ6.~o 1~3~96 -12- (4) The Developer and/or the City will designate a "disturbance coordinator" who will be responsible for responding to complaints about noise (e.g., starting too early, poor mufflers, etc.)'. This person will have the authority to take the necessary actions to gain conformance with these conditions. The telephone number and name of this person will be conspicuously posted at the construction site to provide communication among the neighbors, the Developer, and the City. c. Monitorina Proaram. The monitoring program identified under Category I.B.2 in Attachment i to this Exhibit A is hereby incorporated by reference as the monitoring program for the above described mitigation measures. d. Findinq. The above mitigation measures and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the information and analysis in Sections 1.2.1 and 3.2 of the Draft 1996 SEIR, the finding is made that adoption of the above mitigation measures and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant impact of construction noise described above. Limiting construction hours, maintaining equipment in good condition, locating significant noise-generating equipment away from residences, and designating a disturbance coordinator with specified responsibilities are established methods used in.Campbell and other localities to reduce construction noise from a project such as the Project below the acceptable thresholds identified in Section 3.2 of the Draft 1996 SEIR. 2. Impact of Noise Generated by Project. a. Potentially siqnificant Impact. The Paseo de Palomas mobile home park adjoins the Property to the northeast. The proposed site plan for the Project includes a 50-foot landscaped buffer along the northeastern Property boundary. The Project is not expected to result in a substantial increase in noise at the mobile home park. It is, however, possible that mechanical equipment on Project buildings could generate noise exceeding existing ambient levels and appropriate property line limits. b. Mitiqation Measures. (1) The noise standards in Table 3-12 of the Draft 1996 SEIR will be applied as performance standards for the proposed Project which may affect noise sensitive land uses. Exceptions to the standards shall be limited to the following: ~O~OQ6.P$o ~2/~o/96 - 1 3 - (A) In the event the measured ambient noise level exceeds the applicable noise level standard in the category expressed in Table 3-12, the applicable standard will be adjusted so as to equal the ambient noise level. (B) Each of the noise level standards specified in Table 3-12 will be reduced by 5 dBA for simple tone noises, noises consisting primarily of speech or music, or for recurring impulsive noises. (2) Consistent with City policy, a solid masonry sound wall will be required at the common boundary of the Property and adjacent residential use. c. Monitoring program. The monitoring program identified under Category I.B.1 in Attachment I to this Exhibit A is hereby incorporated by reference as the monitoring program for the above described mitigation measures. d. Finding. The above mitigation measures and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the information and analysis in Sections 1.2.1 and 3.2 of the Draft 1996 SEIR, the finding is made that the adoption of the above mitigation measures and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessens the potentially significant impact of noise generated by the Project described above. Adherence to the performance standards set forth in Table 3-12 of the Draft SEIR (which standards have been developed through extensive scientific research for application in situations like the Project) will reduce noise from mechanical equipment in the Project to acceptable levels on surrounding uses, as defined in Section 3.2 of the Draft 1996 SEIR. Likewise, the City has found from past experience that masonry soundwalls significantly mitigate noise impacts of office/commercial uses on adjacent residential uses. C. AIR QUALITY 1. Construction Impacts. a. potentially Significant Impact. construction activities associated with the Project would create additional sources of dust from clearing, grading, and other construction- related activities. (This potential impact was identified in the 1992 EIR and is found to be relevant to the Project, as noted in Section 1.2.2 of the Draft 1996 SEIR). 103~.P$0 1~30/~ -14- b. Mitigation. (1) Earthmoving or other dust-producing activities for the Project will be suspended during high wind periods when dust is readily visible in the air. (2) Equipment and manpower for watering of all exposed or disturbed soil surfaces will be provided at least twice daily, including weekends and holidays. An appropriate dust palliative or suppressant, added to water before application, will be utilized. (3) Stockpiles of debris, soil, sand, or other materials that can be blown by the wind will be watered or covered. (4) Construction areas and adjacent streets will be swept of all mud and debris, since this material can be pulverized and later resuspended by vehicle traffic. (5) The speed of all construction vehicles will be limited to 15 miles per hour while on site. c. Monitoring program. The monitoring program identified under Category II.A.1 in Attachment I to this Exhibit A is hereby incorporated by reference as the monitoring program for the above described mitigation measures. d. Finding. The above mitigation measures and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the information and analysis in Section 4 (Air Quality subsection) of the 1992 Draft EIR and Section 1.2.2 of the Draft 1996 SEIR, the finding is made that the adoption of the above mitigation measures and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant impact on air quality resulting from Project construction described above. The use of watering alone for dust control is estimated to reduce dust emissions by approximately 50 percent. The combined effect of the above mitigation measures, including the use of a dust suppressant, would have a control efficiency of 70 to 80 percent, which would reduce construction-related air quality impacts to a less than significant level. 2. Impact Following Construction. a. potentially Significant Impact. When compared to the background conditions, traffic generated by the Project would create sli~t differences in carbon monoxide ("CO") concentrations. The Project would result in increases in CO ~O3OQ6.pso 12,/3o/96 - 1 5 - concentrations at two intersections (Union/Campbell and Camden/Curtner), no change at two intersections (Bascom/Camden and Bascom/Curtner), and a decrease at one intersection (Bascom/Union). The decrease in concentration is likely a result of changes in signal timing to accommodate the changes in traffic levels. At most, the PrOject would increase 1-hour CO levels by 0.4 parts per million ("ppm") and 8-hour CO levels by 0.3 ppm relative to background conditions. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District ("BAAQMD") has issued guidelines for evaluating the significance of air quality impacts (BAAQMD, 1995). FOr carbon monoxide concentrations from motor vehicles, a project would have a significant impact if it causes a new exceedance of a CO standard or makes worse an existing exceedance. As a result, the increase in concentrations at the Camden/Curtner and Union/Campbell intersections would represent a significant air quality impact because 1-hour and 8- hour CO exceedances would become worse under Project conditions. Air quality impacts at the other intersections would be less than significant. b. Mitiaation Measure. The most commonly applied mitigation measures for automobile-generating pollutants (and the only possible ones identified by the experienced preparer of the 1996 SEIR and by the Agency and City Council) are Transportation Demand Management or Transportation Systems Management programs (collectively, a "TDM/TSM Program"). For reasons set forth in the findings below, a TDM/TSM Program is not adopted as a mitigation measure for the Project impacts on CO concentrations at two specified intersections following construction. c. Monitoring Program. Not applicable. d. Finding. Based on the information and analysis in Sections 1.2.1 and 3.3 of the Draft 1996 SEIR and for the reasons summarized below, the findings are made that the identified air quality impact could not be reduced to a less than significant level even with the implementation of a TDM/TSM Program, and that specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the TDM/TSM Program mitigation measure identified in the 1996 SEIR. An aggressive TDM program has the potential to marginally reduce daily trips by about 10 to 25 percent, and air quality impacts associated with automobile usage would be reduced proportionally. However, a 10 to 25 percent reduction in the daily trips associated with the Project would not bring the local air quality impacts at the two identified intersections to below 1030Q6.PSO 12/3o/96 -- 16- a level of significance. Significant unmitigatable air quality impacts would continue to occur at the intersections identified above even if a TDM/TSM Program were adopted. Some reasons for the limited effectiveness of a TDM/TSM Program are as follows. Although promising in concept, reducing peak hour traffic through trip demand management has not proved to be an effective tool in changing trip behavior by employees, except for very large employers whose employees for the most part work on fixed schedules. For carpooling to be effective, there must be a large enough employee base so that a significant number of persons interested in carpooling and with similar origins and work times can be matched. For the transit mode, there must be a high level of transit on streets that are within 1/4 mile of the work site. And in both cases, there must be time and/or cost incentives, such as high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes and preferential parking. Unfortunately, many of these factors are beyond the control of an individual developer. It can not influence residential location, the level of transit service, or the extent to which HOV lanes have been added to freeways and expressways. Unfortunately, neither the proposed Project nor its size or usage fit well the conditions that are prime candidates for successful TDM/TSM programs. Forcing the Developer to have such a program would not be cost-effective and likely would not increase the number of non-single occupancy vehicle trips beyond what would occur through informal participation. The distance of the Property from transit routes, free on-site parking, and the absence of HOV lanes on Highway 17 eliminate the most promising incentives that could be used in a TDM/TSM Program. Finally, the nature and size of the proposed Project is not one that is likely to have a large enough beneficial effect to justify a TDM/TSM Program. While the benefits of the TDM/TSM Program would not significantly reduce the identified air quality impact, the cost of imposing a TDM/TSM Program could be sufficiently severe as to render it impractical to proceed with the Project. The Project, at full buildout, will contain about 325,000 square feet of building space and employ an estimated 750 employees. A program of this size is not large enough to create a critical mass and economies of scale that would support the cost of a TDM/TSM Program. Such costs include information dissemination, ridership coordination, administration, monitoring, and enforcement. These costs are relatively fixed, regardless of project size. Since the Property is being sold for its full fair market value as documented in the Section 33433 Summary, there is by definition no excess Developer profit to pay such cost directly or through reduced rents that might enable end users to pay such IO~O~.P$O 12/~/~ - 17 - costs. As documented in the Section 33433 Summary, it is not feasible to spread these costs to the end users of the Project because the proportional burden of the relatively fixed cost on each end user of such a small project would make the Project a noncompetitive location for the typical end user of this type of business 9ark in the Silicon Valley. The Agency and City Council are not aware of successful business park developments in the silicon Valley of similar scope to the proposed Project in which a TDM/TSM Program has been imposed, and no such program has been imposed on other developments in Campbell for similar reasons. Further, because of the Property's relatively isolated location, a TDM/TSM Program would be difficult to coordinate with existing public transit routes and facilities. Because of the likely multiple ownership of parcels in the Property upon buildout of the Project and the multiplicity of separately owned businesses in the surrounding McGlincey Lane industrial area, it would be administratively and legally impractical, if not impossible, to coordinate a large enough mass of geographically related employment generators in the vicinity of the Project to economically support a TDM/TSM Program. In summary, the relatively fixed costs of a TDM/TSM Program are too high to be borne by the Developer or. end users without rendering the Project non-competitive and impractical. The benefits of such a TDM/TSM Program would be marginal and would not reduce the significant air quality impact described above to a non-significant level. For these reasons, economic and other considerations make infeasible the TDM/TSM Program identified in the 1996 SEIR. It should be noted that, for similar reasons, the experienced EIR consultant did not recommend adoption of the identified mitigation measure. D. WATER SUPPLY CoNsTRUCTION IMPACT 1. potentially Siqnificant Impact. According to the Central Fire District and San Jose Water Company, the fire flow requirement for development of the Property with the'proposed Project would be 3,500 gallons per minute ("gpm"). According to a study performed by the San Jose Water Company, the existing water supply system serving the Property is not adequate to provide the required fire flow. the Water Company has identified the improvements required to provide the needed fire flow to the Property. These improvements would be both within and outside the McGlincey Lane area, and %ould generally consist of new water pipes, new hydrants, meters, and ancillary items. The impacts associated with installation of water system improvements would ~O~OQe.PSO 1~30/~ - 18- primarily be construction-related impacts such as noise, dust, and traffic diversion. 2. Mitigation Measures. a. In consultation with the Central Fire District and San Jose Water Company, the Developer and/or City will install the necessary water supply improvements to provide adequate fire flows to the Property. b. Construction activities related to installation of the proposed water supply improvements will be coordinated with the appropriate jurisdiction to reduce construction-related impacts. c. Specifically, the construction mitigation measures described in Section IV.B.1 and C.1 above will be implemented and are incorporated in this Section IV.D by this reference. 3. Monitoring Program. The monitoring program identified under Category I.D.1 in Attachment i to this Exhibit A is hereby incorporated by reference as the monitoring program for the above described mitigation measures. 4. FindinG. The above mitigation measures and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the information and analysis in Sections 1.2.1, 3.2, 3.3, a~d 3.5 of the Draft 1996 SEIR, the finding is made that adoption of the above mitigation measures and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant construction- related impacts of installing water supply improvements described above. Coordinating with the relevant regulatory agencies, limiting construction hours, maintaining equipment in good condition, locating significant noise-generated equipment away from residences, designating a disturbance coordinator with specific responsibilities, and implementing specified dust suppression measures are established methods used in Campbell and other localities to reduce construction-related impacts from public utility improvement projects, such as noise, dust and traffic diversion, to an acceptable, non-significant level. E. STORM DRAINAGE CONSTRUCTION IMPACT 1. Potentially Significant Impact. Specific storm drain improvements for the proposed Project will likely consist of a new =torm drain on the Property itself, catch basins, and possibly some off-site improvements (as further detailed in Exhibit G of the DDA). If off-site improvements are required, I030(~.PSO 1Z/3o/96 - 19- the impacts associated with those improvements would primarily'be construction-related impacts such as noise, dust, and traffic diversion. 2. Mitigation Measures. The above-identified construction-related impacts will be mitigated through compliance with the City's ordinances and regulations relating to infrastructure construction in City rights-of-way. In addition, the construction mitigation measures described in Section IV.B.1 and IV.C.1 above will be implemented and are incorporated in this Section IV.E by this reference. 3. Monitoring program. The monitoring program identified under Category II.E.1 in Attachment I to this Exhibit A is hereby incorporated by reference as the monitoring program for the above described mitigation measures. 4. Finding. The above mitigation measures and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the information and analysis in Sections 1.2.2, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.6 of the Draft 1996 SEIR and Section 4 (Drainage/Flooding) of the 1992 Draft EIR, the finding is made that adoption of the above mitigation measures and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant construction- related impacts of installing storm drainage improvements described above. Limiting construction hours, maintaining equipment in good condition, locating significant noise- generating equipment away from residences, designating a disturbance coordinator with specified responsibilities, and implementing specified dust suppression measures are established methods used in Campbell and other localities to reduce construction-related impacts from public utility improvement projects, such as noise, dust and traffic diversion, to an acceptable, non-significant level. F. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 1. Potentially Significant Impact. The use, storage, and transport of hazardous materials to, from and on the Property as a result of the Project may result in spills, leaks, or accidents involving these materials. (This potentially significant impact was identified in the 1992 EIR and is found to be relevant to the Project, as noted in Section 1.2.2 of the Draft 1996 SEIR.) 2. Mitigation Measure. The Santa Clara County Central Fire District will continue to implement and enforce the Hazardous Materials Storage Ordinance and Toxic Gas Ordinance. 1030Q6.PSO 12/30/96 -2 O- 3. Monitoring Program. The monitoring program identified under Category II.B.1 in Attachment i to this Exhibit A is hereby incorporated by reference as the monitoring program for the above described mitigation measure. 4. Finding. The above mitigation measures and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based on the information and analysis in Section 4 (Hazardous Materials subsection) of the 1992 Draft EIR and Sections 1.2.2 and 3.5.1 of the Draft 1996 SEIR (regarding transfer of responsibility for administration of the Hazardous Materials Ordinance and the Toxic Gas Ordinance from the City's Fire Department to the Santa Clara County Central Fire District), the findings are made that: a. the above mitigation measure is within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the Santa Clara County Central Fire District and not the Agency or the City; and b. the District has adopted and is implementing such mitigation measure. The Hazardous Materials Ordinance and the Toxic Gas Ordinance embody regulations to control hazardous materials that have been developed through extensive scientific analysis and practical experience to deal with the precise type of potential impact outlined above. These ordinances are imposed by the Santa Clara County Central Fire District, with support from the City's Public Works Environment Program staff, on a uniform basis as the best available means to mitigate the identified impact. CULTURAL RESOURCES 1. Potentially Significant Impact. Construction activities associated with the Project that involve the removal of surface paving materials could potentially unearth subsurface, buried cultural remains. (This potentially significant impact was identified in the 1992 EIR and is found to be relevant to the Project, as noted in Section 1.2.2 of the Draft 1996 SEIR.) 2. Mitiaation. If cultural remains are encountered during construction activities, work will be stopped, an archaeological monitor called in, and appropriate mitigation measures will be developed and implemented. 3. Monitoring program. The monitoring program identified under Category II.C.1 in Attachment I to this Exhibit A is hereby incorporated by reference as the monitoring program for the above described mitigation measures. 1030~6.PS0 12/3o/96 - 21- 4. ~inding. The above mitigation measure and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the information and analysis in Section 4 (Cultural Resources subsection) of the 1992 Draft EIR, the finding is made that the adoption of the above mitigation measure and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the above-described potentially significant environmental impact on cultural resources associated with Project construction. Use of a qualified archeological monitor to design specific mitigation measures, and subsequent implementation .of any such measures, is the most efficient, flexible means to respond to any currently unidentified cultural remains that may be unearthed through Project construction. H. GEOLOGY 1. Potentially Significant Impact. The Project will be subject to groundshaking in the event of a major earthquake in the San Francisco Bay region. (This potentially significant impact was identified in the 1992 EIR and is found to be relevant to the Project, as noted in Section 1.2.2 of the Draft 1996 SEIR.) 2. Mitigation. Development activities associated with the Project Will be required to comply with all applicable zoning and building code regulations relative to seismic construction standards, and'with the Seismic Element policies in the General Plan. In particular, Seismic Element Policy #4 requires that project-specific, detailed geotechnical studies will be performed to determine site-specific hazards and mitigations. 3. Monitoring Program. The monitoring program identified under Category II.D.1 in Attachment i to this Exhibit A is hereby incorporated by reference as the monitoring program for the above described mitigation measures. 4. Finding. The above mitigation measures and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the information and analysis in Section 4 (Geology subsection) of the 1992 Draft EIR, the finding is made that the adoption of the above mitigation measure and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the above-described potentially significant environmental impact related to earthquake hazards to the Project. The City's regulations an~ procedures for design and construction of buildings to deal with earthquake hazards are based on extensive scientific and engineering analysis as well as substantial regulatory experience, and are imposed on a uniform 12/30/96 -- 22 - basis by the City as the best available means to ensure seismic safety for building projects. V. OTHER NON SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS While not required by CEQA, the 1996 SEIR (incorporating relevant provisions of the 1992 EIR) also evaluated certain non- significant environmental impacts of the Project and proposed mitigation measures to further reduce those impacts. Those non- significant impacts and the further mitigation measures are set forth in this Section V. TRAFFIC CIRCULATION WITHIN McGLINCEY L~NE INDUSTRIAL AREA 1. Potential Non-Significant Impact. As documented in Sections 1.2.1 and 3.1 of the Draft 1996 SEIR, Project- generated traffic will have a less than significant effect on overall traffic circulation within the McGlincey Lane light industrial area. This non-significant traffic impact is in addition' to the potentially significant traffic impacts analyzed in Section IV.A above. 2. Mitigation Measures. To properly serve Project- generated traffic and to provide maximum operating efficiency, the following site access guidelines and mitigation measures will be implemented: a. Install a STOP and a NO RIGHT TURN sign on the east leg and a YIELD sign and NO LEFT TURN sign on the north leg of the Curtner Avenue/McGlincey Lane intersection. Remove the existing STOP signs located on the north and west legs of the intersection following completion of the proposed intersection modification. b. Access to the Property should be from McGlincey Lane via the existing easement located just west of Westchester Drive. The proposed access easement should be upgraded and improved to public city street standards, providing two traffic lanes including curb, gutter, and sidewalks. The access roadway should be designed for truck operations and no parking should be permitted on this facility. The north leg of the intersection of this access drive with McGlincey Lane should be STOP sign controlled, and provide two lanes at the north leg of the intersection including left-turn and right-turn lanes. c. Secondary access to the Property should be provided, which may be via Cristich Lane or other feasible secondary access acceptable to the City and the Central Fire I030~6.P50 ~2/~0/~6 -23- · District. If Cristich Lane becomes the secondary access, it should be upgraded and improved to public city street standards, and should be designed to meet minimum standards for truck traffic. d. If Cristich Lane is to provide access to the site, on-street parallel parking on both sides of Cristich Lane should be provided. e. Provide on-site parking spaces to accommodate the Project's parking needs based on City requirements. f. Restripe the north leg and the southbound left turn lane of the Camden/Curtner intersection to provide additional capacity to accommodate a total of five left-turning vehicles. g. All City traffic engineering and design standards should be met. 3. Monitorinq Proqram. The monitoring program identified under Category I.A.4 in Attachment i to this Exhibit A is hereby incorporated as the monitoring program for the above identified mitigation measures. 4. Finding. The above mitigation measures and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based on the information and analysis in Sections 1.2.1 and 3.1 of the Draft 1996 SEIR, the finding is made that the above mitigation measures are a cost effective means to further reduce the already non-significant impacts of Project-generated traffic within the McGlincey Lane industrial area. B. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 1. Potential Non-Siqnificant Impact. As documented in the 1992 Draft EIR (see for instance,.p. 4-109), there are no natural biological communities in the McGlincey Lane Expansion Area portion of the Project Area, including the Property. Further, there are no ordinance-size trees on the Property or associated with the anticipated off-site improvements for the Project. However, in accordance with mitigation measure #34 set forth in the 1992 EIR (and adopted in the 1992 Resolution), the mitigation measure described below will be implemented to mitigate any remaining non-significant impact related.to water efficient landscaping for the Project. 2. Mitigation Measures. Landscaping plans for the Project will comply with the City's Water Efficient Landscape lO3OQ6.P5O 12/3o/96 - 2 4 - (WEL) standards and will follow the California Native Plant Society's general revegitation principles, as follows: a. Trees, shrubs, and other herbaceous plants should be used which are naturalized to the general McGlincey Expansion Area. b. If non-indigenous native species are desired for the purpose of form, floral characteristics, or function (ground covers, etc.), species selected should be those which are unlikely to hybridize with local flora, in order to preserve the integrity of the gene pool of the local native species. c. Use of exotic plants should be avoided. 3. Monitoring program. The Planning Department will impose the above mitigation measures through review of landscaping plans as part of, and through conditions of approval to, the Planning Approvals for the Project. The Public Works Department will ensure compliance with the mitigation measures in the field. The mitigation measures will be implemented at the time of the Planning Approvals and as construction occurs. 4. Finding. Based upon the information and analyses in Section 4 (Biological Resources) of the 1992 Draft EIR and a recent field investigation regarding potential ordinance-size trees: a. The finding is made that the Project will not have a significant effect on biological resources. The above mitigation measures and monitoring program are nonetheless adopted to further mitigate any non-significant impact related to water efficient landscaping for the Project. b. The finding is further made pursuant to 14 California Code of Regulations Section 753.5(e) that, considering the record as a whole, approval and implementation of the Project involves no potential for adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on vegetation or wildlife, and that, therefore, no fee is required in connection with the filing of Notice of Determination with respect to the 1996 SEIR or the discretionary approvals for the Project. In compliance with 14 California Code of Regulation Section 753.5, the following additional information is provided: ~o3oQ6.1~$o ~2/3o/96 - 2 5 - proponents are: (1) The name and address of the Project City of Campbell Redevelopment Agency 70 North First Street Campbell, CA 95008 and Campbell Technology Park LLC 900 Welch Road, Suite 10 Palo Alto, CA 94304 (2) The Project is the development of a high-end business park as fully described in Section I.A of this Exhibit A. (3) The 1992 EIR (see citation above) addresses the issue of environmental impact of the Project on vegetation and wildlife, and concludes that approval and implementation of the Project on the Property will have no significant effect on vegetation or wildlife. (4) When considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence before the Agency or the City Council that the proposed adoption and implementation of the Project will have potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. (5) The Agency and the City Council have., on the basis of substantial evidence, consisting of the above recited information, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect contained in 14 California Code of Regulations, Section 753.5(d). FI. UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Based on the analysis contained in the 1996 SEIR (including the 1992 EIR as incorporated therein by reference) and Section IV of this Exhibit A, the following unavoidable significant adverse impact of approval and implementation of the Project is identified: The increase in concentrations of carbon monoxide at the Camden/Curtner and Union/Campbell intersections as a result of anticipated Project-related traffic would represent a significant unmitigated air quality impact because 1-hour ].O3OQ6.PSo 12/30/96 -2 6- and 8-hour carbon monoxide exceedances would become worse under Project conditions. As to this significant environmental impact, the Agency and the City Council find that there are no feasible mitigation measures identified in the 1996 SEIR that might reduce the level of significance of this impacts, and specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the adoption of the only possible mitigation measure (as detailed in Section IV.C.2.d above) or the project alternatives (as detailed in Section VII below). Therefore, in order to approve the DDA and the Planning Approvals, the approval resolution or other official approval action must contain the Agency's (or City Council's, as applicable) statement of overriding considerations in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) and Section 15093(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines. VII. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT A. OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION CRITERIA 1. Introduction. This Section VII.A provides an introduction to and overview of the extensive evaluation of alternatives to the Project and reuse of the Property that has been performed by the Agency and City Council, in consultation with nearby property owners and the general Campbell community, over the past several years. Section VII.B below evaluates four specific alternative uses for the Property in terms of environmental effects and ability to achieve redevelopment and other community objectives. The information and analysis in this Section VII is drawn from Section 5 of the 1992 Draft EIR, Section 4 of the Draft 1996 SEIR (as modified in the Final 1996 SEIR), the ERA Alternatives Study, the Staff Reports on Alternatives, and other information known to the Agency and City Council through their deliberations on alternative uses for the Property. 2. Overview of process Since. 1992 ~IR. The 1992 EIR evaluated several alternatives for the Property in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines, including the No Project Alternative and several alternative land uses on the Property. After the Agency purchased the Property in 1994, it conducted an extensive public process to determine the optimum land use for the Property. A variety of land use.concepts for the Property were developed, and were formally evaluated in the ERA Alternatives Study (1995) and the Staff Reports on Alternatives (1996). 1030Q6.PSO ~./3o/9e - 2 7 - The purpose of the ERA Alternatives Study, the Staff Reports on Alternatives, and the Agency's public input process was to help determine a land development strategy that balanced environmental considerations,. Campbell's financial and non- financial objectives for the Property, and the ability to improve the McGlincey Lane area's infrastructure. Through a series of meetings and evaluations, four land use alternatives for the site were developed, taking into account and building upon the evaluation of land use alternatives set forth in the 1992 EIR. The predominant land uses in the four alternatives were: commercial recreation, industrial, residential, and public park. Because there was an interest in relocating the City's corporation yard to the Property, each alternative then had two sub-alternatives or variations, one with and one without the corporation yard. The land sale or land lease revenue potential of each alternative was analyzed, in addition to overall municipal cost and revenue implications. The cost analysis included roadway improvements, utilities upgrading, park development, park maintenance, and other General Fund service costs. The Agency's evaluation on how to proceed with the use of the Property also considered the compatibility of the use with the surrounding neighborhood, other environmental issues as outlined in the 1992 EIR, the desires of the community, and potentially creative proposals which developers would be able to bring into the process. After the ERA Alternatives Study was received and reviewed by the Agency Board, the Agency decided to issue an RFP to developers, corporations, and other parties that might be interested in purchasing and developing all or a portion of the Property. The RFP did not restrict the proposals to a certain land use or development type; rather, it identified the range of four land uses that had been evaluated in the ERA Alternatives Study and encouraged submittals for creative projects that could meet the City's and Agency's financial and non-financial objectives. The Agency received eight proposals from developers, four for commercial recreation, three for research and development/light industrial, and one for a private school. Upon extensive evaluation and public discussion, the Agency Board chose to negotiate with WTA Development for the sale of the Property and development of the Project because the Project appears to best meet the goals and objectives established for the Property, taking into account relevant environmental impacts. 103OQ6.P$O 12/3o/96 - 2 8 - 3. RedeveloDment and Planninq objectives. In determining what land use alternatives were viable for the Property, several objectives were considered including the following (the "Redevelopment and Planning Objectives"): a. Land Use ComDatibilit¥. The AgenCy evaluated what kind of land use would be compatible where the surrounding land use consisted of primarily industrial uses bordered by a freeway. This setting makes a residential reuse of the Property very problematic. Additionally, residents of the Paseo de Palomas Mobile Home Park immediately adjacent to the Property are particularly concerned with a recreational use that might include sports activities, such as a golf driving range or sports fields where noise would be a concern. Development of a research and development/light industrial business park on the Property is generally viewed as the most compatible land use. b. Redevelopment Goals and Object~ve~. The Redevelopment Plan identifies several goals for the McGlincey Lane area, including improvement of Cristich Lane to a public street, extending storm drain to address existing point and non- point source water pollution concerns, improving water supply to provide adequate fire flow and to address inadequate fire suppression conditions in the area, and to facilitate the development of the Property which has been a blight in the area for 14 years. Existing redevelopment funds and anticipated tax increment revenues are not adequate to finance these capital projects. The net proceeds generated by the sale of the Property and the development of the site itself could help finance many of these improvements. Without such net sale proceeds, Agency tax increment revenue from the area is not likely to be sufficient to fund new redevelopment activities in the forseeable future. c. .Financial Feasibility. The City loaned the Agency $3.34 million to acquire the Property on a short term basis to help facilitate its development. The Agency determined that, at a minimum, the sale of the Property should generate enough revenue to retire the Agency's debt to the City, net any Agency costs'andobligations associated with the development of the Property. Based on the commercial recreation projects proposed, none were determined to be financially feasible under this standard, while the proposed research and development Project is estimated to provide a net return sufficient to find storm drain and Cristich Lane improvements of benefit to the McGlincey Lane area and yield additional funds in excess of $2 million after costs and expenses. d. Public Open Spaces. In addition to the acquisition costs, developing and maintaining the Property as a 1030Q6.PSO 12/3o/96 - 2 9- public park would require an additional $5 to $7 million depending upon the extent of onsite improvements and required offsite improvements needed to develop adequate access and infrastructure to the Property. Additionally, the site is challenged in meeting many of the criteria established on page 8 of the Open Space Element of the General Plan for acquiring and developing open space. For example, the Property is not within walking distance to a significant number of Campbell neighborhoods, it is not particularly visible or accessible to Campbell residents due to lack of convenient pedestrian and vehicular access, and the frequency of commercial trucks and vehicles in the area does not provide a desirable condition for public open space and park land. Given the costs for development, a 23-acre park does not appear to be financially feasible for a City which already supports a City-wide 30-acre recreational facility at the Community Center. In addition, local youth sports groups such as the Campbell Little League, Bobby Sox, and Soccer Leagues have not expressed support, and other public agencies either did not express support or were not financially able to consider a partnership with Campbell for development of the site. These Redevelopment and Planning Objectives have been distilled from the General Plan, the Redevelopment Plan, the 1992 Report to City Council, the Agency's Implementation Plan and other evidence in the Record, and provide a basis for evaluating the ability of various alternatives to satisfy the Agency/City goals for redevelopment of the Property. 4. The 1996 SEIR Alternatives Analysim. several of the land use alternatives for the Property evaluated in the 1992 EIR remain relevant and valid as alternatives to the Project for CEQA purposes. The analysis of these alternatives is incorporated by reference in the 1996 SEIR and is summarized (with appropriate updates) in Section VII.B below. Specifically, Section VII.B.1 evaluates the No Project Alternative, as required by CEQA. Section VII.B.2 evaluates two land use alternatives for the Property that were initially considered in the 1992 EIR and that have been a focus of continuing consideration by the Agency over the past two and a half years, as outlined above: a residential use, and a public park use. The only use of the Property that has received serious consideration in the ERA Alternatives Study and subsequent Agency deliberations, but that was not evaluated from an environmental alternatives perspective in the 1992 EIR, is the commercial recreation use. Section VII.B.3 below provides a summary of the environmental and other impacts of a commercial recreation use, ~Z~0/96 -- 3 O-- based on the new discussion of that alternative contained in the 1996 SEIR. The 1992 EIR and the 1996 SEIR did not analyze any alternative location for the Project. Recent court .cases suggest that CEQA may, where appropriate, require an analysis of alternative locations for a project, as well as alternative projects on the same site. CEQA requires that the alternatives be capable of obtaining the basic objectives of the proposed project (Section 15126(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines). For the following reasons, it has been concluded that there is no feasible alternative location for the Project. The Property is the only relatively large, currently undeveloped site in the City of Campbell or immediate environs that could accommodate a high-end research and development park of the size and scope contemplated for the Project. Assembling a sufficiently large site to accommodate the Project at another location in Campbell or its environs would result in business and residential relocation, demolition, public infrastructure improvements, and conflicting land use in built-up neighbOrhoods that would cause more disruption and adverse environmental impact than would development of the Project on the vacant, relatively isolated Property. The costs of land assembly would be several times greater than the land cost of the Property, making development of the Project at another location in the general vicinity of the Property economically impractical for the Agency and any private developer. In short, an alternative location for the Project would be prohibitively costly to assemble and would cause more severe environmental impacts than locating the Project on the Property. Finally, moving the Project to an alternative location, if one could feasibly be found, would deprive the Agency of its best opportunity to remove blight on the Property while generating disposition proceeds to address other redevelopment needs in the McGlincey Lane portion of the Project Area. Consequently, consistent with Section 15125(d)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, an alternative location for the Project is found to be infeasible and has not been evaluated further in the 1996 SEIR or this Exhibit A. B. SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES AND REASONS FOR REJECTION Following is a summary of the proposed land use alternatives for the Property evaluated in the 1996 SEIR (including relevant alternatives from the 1992 EIR as incorporated by reference). The reasons for their selection as the most viable alternatives ]o3oQ6.P$O 12/3o/96 - 3 1- are addressed in Section VII.A above. The likely environmental impacts of each alternative and each alternative's ability to meet the Redevelopment and Planning Objectives are briefly summarized and are compared to the environmental impacts and potential of the Project to meet the Redevelopment and Planning Objectives. Each alternative is rejected as being infeasible because it fails to meet one or more of the Redevelopment Planning Objectives in a timely manner and/or would cause various adverse environmental or fiscal impacts that can be avoided through implementation of the Project. The reasons for rejection of the alternatives are summarized below and are supported by substantial evidence in the Record. 1. The No Project Alternative. The No Project Alternative means that the Property would remain vacant (unless the Agency permitted reuse for one of the other alternatives analyzed separately below). Potentially significant adverse impacts of the Project related to traffic, noise, air quality, construction impacts, hazardous materials, seismic safety, and cultural resources would generally not occur under the No Project Alternative since such impacts are generally associated with the development process. The vacant site would be less aesthetically appealing to some observers then a well designed Project. On balance, the No Project Alternative would have the fewest adverse environmental effects and would be considered the environmentally superior alternative among those evaluated in the 1992 EIR and the 1996 SEIR. However, without development the Agency would not be able to generate net disposition proceeds from the sale of the Property to a Developer. As a result, the Agency would not have sale proceeds to repay the City loan or accelerate the redevelopment program for the McGlincey Lane area through improvements to Cristich Lane and other needed infrastructure improvements. In turn, the Agency would have to. rely on limited tax increment revenues for these activities which would probably retard the redevelopment effort in the McGlincey-Lane area for a decade or more. Most important, the No Project Alternative would prevent the reuse of the largest and one of the most blighted parcels in the Project Area, thereby frustrating an essential purpose of the Redevelopment Plan and the Agency's Implementation Plan. For these reasons, the No Project Alterative fundamentally fails to achieve the underlying Redevelopment and Planning Goals of the Agency and the City. On this basis, the finding is made that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the No Project Alternative, and the No Project 1030Q6.P$O 12/30/96 -- 3 2 - Alternative is hereby rejected even though it might prove to be an environmentally superior alternative. 2. Alternative Land Uses on property Evaluated Sn 1992 EIR (as Updated in 1996). Several alternative land uses for the Property were considered in the 1992 EIR. Two of the alternatives -- residential and public park -- are relevant to the current consideration of alternatives to the Project because they reflect two of the four basic alternatives considered in the ERA Alternatives Study, the Staff Reports on Alternatives, and the Agency's recent deliberations on appropriate uses for the Property. Following is a brief summary of those two alternatives that builds upon the material in the 1992 EIR. a. ~esidential. Although the traffic generation rates are lower for residential uses on the Property than for commercial, office or industrial uses like the proposed Project, residential uses generate traffic in both the morning and evening peak periods. Residential uses also place a higher demand on City services and generate limited City revenues. A residential use in the Property would not be compatible with the elevated noise levels generated from SR-17 traffic, and marketing a residential development on the site would be difficult, given its access through and proximity to the McGlincey industrial area. In summary, a residential use of the Property might be marginally superior to the Project from a traffic and air quality perspective, but would cause greater land use conflict and noise impacts than the Project. Overall, it is .difficult to judge if the residential alternative would be superior or inferior to the Project from an environmental perspective. On the other hand, the residential alternative would clearly fail to meet Redevelopment and Planning Objectives related to land use compatibility. For these reasons, the finding is made that specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the residential alternative for the Property, and the residential alternative is hereby rejected. b. Public Park. During the public scoping meetings for the 1992 EIR, several comments from nearby residents suggested the City consider a park/open space use for the Property. In June 1990, the Cambrian Community Council also recommended that a park be considered for the Property as part of a mixed use project. A public park use would generate less traffic than the Project, and generally would produce more limited environmental effects related to air quality, construction impacts, hazardous materials impacts, cultural resource impacts, and seismic safety impacts. From this perspective, a public park use would be the environmentally ~o:~oQ6.P$O 12/:~o/96 - 3 3 - superior alternative for the Property (other than the No Project Alternative). However, a public park use would be susceptible to the same negative land use compatibility effects as a residential use at the Property, i.e., traffic noise and air quality impacts from proximity to SR-17. In addition, the Property would have no direct access to a public street and is not centrally located to the remainder of the Union Avenue neighborhood. Drive-by surveillance of the site would be difficult. Lack of public visibility is often a factor leading to security and vandalism at parks. As noted in Section VII.A.3 above, the Property is challenged in meeting many of the General Plan Open Space Element criteria for suitable public park locations. Finally, a public park use alternative would cause severe negative financial impacts to the City and Agency as described in Section VII.A.3. Park development would require $5-7 million of City funds and annual maintenance costs would further impact the General Fund,' possibly precluding funding other competing capital projects, including implementation of the Campbell Community Center Master Plan and future park acquisition and development in other areas of the City. The Agency would lose the ability to generate net sale proceeds to fund other activities in the McGlincey Lane area or to repay the City loan. In summary, while a public park use of the Property would prove environmentally superior to the Project, that alternative would fail to satisfy nearly all of the community's Redevelopment and Planning Objectives in the McGlincey Lane area. For these reasons, the finding is made that specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the public park alternative for the Property, and the public park alternative is hereby rejected. 3. The Commercial Recreation Alternative. A commercial recreation land use on the Property might consist of a golf practice range, a family recreation complex, a buffer area between the site and the mobile home park, and possible inclusion of the City corporation yard. The golf practice range is assumed to have 50 stations on two levels, and a club house/pro shop of about 2,000 square feet. The family recreation complex may include uses such as an arcade, restaurant, miniature golf course, go-kart track, batting cages, bumper rides, kiddie rides, and "soft play" area. Most of these activities would be outdoors. A commercial recreation alternative would generate approximately 5,800 vehicle trips daily (as opposed to an estimated 2,538 daily trips for the Project), but the trips would 1030Q6.P$O 12/30/96 -- 3 4 -- likely be distributed more evenly throUghout a 24-hour period than the AM/PM peak distribution associated with the proposed Project. A substantial number of trips would be generated in the late afternoon and evening, when children are not in school. This alternative would also generate higher noise levels than the proposed Project, because the majority of activities would take place outdoors. Several activities, such as go-karts, bumper cars, and kiddie rides, could generate substantial noise levels which may impact the Paseo de Palomas mobile home park. Other · variants of a commercial recreation alternative might have fewer high-noise impacts, but any commercial recreation variant involving outdoor activities is likely to have noise impacts that exceed those anticipated for the Project. Environmental effects of a commercial recreation alternative related to construction impact, hazardous materials, and cultural resource disturbance are likely to be similar to the anticipated impacts of the Project. A commercial recreation alternative would fail to meet fundamental Redevelopment and Planning Objectives related to land use compatibility problems with the adjacent mobile home park (see Section VII.A.3 above). Further, it is estimated that no net sale proceeds would remain available to the Agency to jump- start other redevelopment activities in the McGlincey Lane area (as opposed to estimated net proceeds from the Project sufficient to fund storm drain and Cristich Lane improvements for the McGlincey Lane area and to yield over $2 million for other redevelopment activities). Indeed, a commercial recreation reuse might not generate sufficient sale or lease proceeds even to repay the Agency's loan to the City. One variant of the commercial recreation alternative considered by the Agency was the proposal in response to the development RFP submitted by a non-profit recreational entity called "Sports Mall". When other development proposals were rejected by the Agency Board, the "Sports Mall Task Force" was provided an opportunity to demonstrate the financial viability of their project. The Sports Mall proposal includes various indoor and outdooor sports activities on a lease or membership basis. An independent economic report commissioned by the Task Force indicated that financing for such a project was tenuous. It was determined that this kind of facility would likely serve as a regional rather and local resource, and neither Santa Clara County nor other public agencies were willing to step forward at that time to participate in financing such a project. The Task Force was not able to adequately demonstrate the financial viability of their project, and the proposed sports mall concept was not considered further by the Agency. iO3OQ6.p$o 12/:~o/~6 - 3 5- For these reasons, the finding is made that specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the commercial recreation alternative for the Property, and the commercial recreation alternative is hereby rejected. C. OVERALL FINDING REGARDING ALTERh'ATIVES After consideration of a reasonable range of identified alternatives to the Project, the Agency and the City Council find that none is as beneficial to the community as the proposed Project in terms of achieving the Redevelopment and Planning Objectives, and that because of each alternative's inability to achieve one or more of the Redevelopment and Planning Objectives, each identified alternative is rejected as being infeasible. 1030(~.P50 12/30/96 - 3 6 -- A~achment #1 1. City of Campbell Redevelopment Agenc Winchester Drive-In Site Project Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring P~x~am fo~ Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ~nd 1992 The following table has been developed in accordance with section 15163 of the California EnVironmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, ~ contains the mitigation measures necessary to develop the proposed research and development/light industrial business park. This table includes a list of mitiEations and the reference to the appropriate Environmental Impact Report category, the impact, the timing of the mitigation, the City of C~mpbell department responsible for the implementation of the miggation, the gate the mitigation is monitored and/or completed, and the initials of the individual that was responsible for monitoring and/or ensuring completion of the appropriate mitigation. Pro,,ct construction will be phased .and the timing of mitigation implementation will be determined during the pro~t reivew and pubUc review process and as ~ in the project conditions of approval. IMPACT TRAFHC Additional traffic at the intersections of Union Avenue/McGlincey l~ne and Ca~en~nion Avenues. MrrlGATION- SEIR Unim~lVIcGlinc~ Intersection The applicant shall install a traffic signal at this inters~:tion, lndudL-~ an ~xclusive left-turn lane from Union Avenue to l~'Glino~ Applicant shall remove three parld~ spaces at the east leg of the intersection. Ca~len/Union Inter.on The applicant shall restdpe the northbound approac~ on Union Avenue to provide an exclusive rt~ht-tum lane. Following completion of completion of fl~ prog~t ~1 Following completion of the project ~nd ~ubltc Works Public Wor~/ Planning Public Wor~ / Planning DATFd INITIAL 1 parking spaces on IdcGlincey Lane. The project will impact the Curtner Avenue/ McGlincey Lane intersection. the traffic circulation pattern in the McGlincey The City will provide addltioml parking on unwarranted parking The applicant shall modify the Cmtner Avaeue/ McGllncey Lane intersection to accomodate through traffic from Curtnm' Avenue The applicant shall install a "STOP" sign and a RIGHT TUI~~ sign on the east leg anda '~IELD~ si~ on the north leg of the ~ Avenue/McGlhu~ Lane intersection. Ren~ve the existing '~roP~ signs located on the north and west legs of the irdersection. Provide access to the site from McGlincey Lane fi'om west of Westche~ter Drive according to city standards for city streets. Secondary access shall be provided to the site via Crlstich Lane or other access acceptable to the City and the Central Fn'e District (CFD). Provide on street parallel parldr~ on both side ot Crl~fl~ ~ ff it is improved to public street standards. Provide on site parking in accordance with dty parktr~ standards, 2 Following completion of prior to rml o~upancy. Following completion Following the completion of intersection Prior to occupar~of the first Following completion of the project. Following completion of enfiflemen~ / construction. Public Works Public Works PubU.c Works PubUc Works Public Works PubUc Works Building Be Mechanical F4uipment on the project butldin~ may exceed ambient noise levels. Short duri~ construction. Applicant shall restripe the northbound approach o~ the intersection and add a new exclusive right-turn- lane. Applicant shall pay a proportional traffic impact ice towards improvements att.he Carr~den/Curtner intersection to be implemented by tl~ City. Applicant shall comply with all City of Campbell traffic engineering and design standards. Applicant/pro{ect.shall comply with all noise described in Section 3.2.3 of the Suplemental Environmental Impact Report. Applicant/project shall comply with all noise described in Section 3.2.3 of the Suplemental Environmental Impact Report. Fouow~n. g fuU prokct bulldout and final Fonowing completion of final occupancy. completion of the project and final Following completion of the project and final Du.,ing pmject Mordtoring will be on- ~i~. Public Works Public Works Public Works Public Works/ 3 t. Am QUALITY Carbon monoxide (CO) conc~trations at Camden/Curmer & Union/Campbell pro~'c~ IVATER SUPPLY Constmclion of water supply lmproverrents may result in consh-uction- rehted noise, dust and traffic diversion. level of si~cance mitigation measures available to the project that will reduce this impact below level of significance eueshold~ A ~t~ oi must be adopted for this impact. Conslruction activities shall be coordinated with the appropriate jurisdiction, Campbell and/or San Jose, to reduce construction related impacts. Prior to and constmction N/A Public Works/ RDA t. AIR ~UALITY Construction activities will create additional sources of dust from othre construction related activities. HAZARDOUS The u~, storage, and transport of hazardous materials in the project area may result in spils, leaks, or accidents involving these materials. construction activity. The project site is subject to ground shaking in the event of a major earthqua~ in the San Francisco Bay Region. MITIGATION con.~'ucflon acfivitles. The project developer and all tenants shall comply with the Hazardous Materials Storage Ordinance and Toxic H cultural reamains are encountered durin~ construction, all development activity shall cease immediately. A certified archeologist shall be contacted and be present at subsequent excavation. Appropriate mitigations · shall be develop~l & The project develope~ shall implement all applicable regulations relevant to geotechnical studies and seismic safety. con.~uction At the time of occupamyof the project Vufin&project excavation and grading Budding Permit plan submittal in compliance with the UBC Building./ Public Works Central Fire District/Public Works Environmental BullcUng/ Public Works/ RDA Bufldm~ Installation of storm drainage faciUties The developer shall comply with all applicable regulations related to mitigation of noise, dust and traffic control measures. ~:~r~tmctton Attachment #11 535 Westchester Drive & 571 McGlincey Lane PROJECT SIT GP 96-02/PD 96-06/TS 97-01 S 97-05 ~ v~y DA$1~ CURTNE.R ~ AV ~NUE DRIVE NO SCALE PROJECT SITE Attachment #12 DEVELOPMENT POLICIES A. Land Use The land use is limited to industrial uses. Industrial uses for the purposes of this site are defined as those uses permitted in the Controlled Manufacturing Zoning District. Destination commercial is defined as a retail or retail/wholesale use which relies on the public's knowledge of the store's location through marketing strategies, repeat shopping and word-of-mouth advertising. Such uses serve a market area beyond Campbell due to the large- scale or specialization of the use. Examples of Controlled Manufactur- ing uses are: a. Administrative, executive and financial offices; b. Manufacture, assembly, packag- ing or distribution of products from previously prepared materials such as cloth, plastic, paper, leather, metal, precious or semiprecious materials or stones; c. Manufacture of electric or electronic instruments and devices such as television, radio, phonographic equipment, computers and computer components; d. Manufacture of pharmaceuticals and food products; e. Research and development laboratories and offices; f. Warehousing and distribution facilities including mini-storage; g. Commercial recreation and athletic facilities, including but not limited to health spas, gyms, tennis, handball, racquetball and batting range; h. Restaurants, when intended primarily to serve the immediate industrial area; i. Retail businesses compatible with the CM zone. The planned development permit application shall master plan development of the entire site. B. Development IntensiW A floor area ratio (FAR) of approximately .35 is anticipated for this site. In conjunction with consideration a specific development application and a public hearing, the City Council may authorize a FAR of up to .40 with the following findings: a. The additional FAR will not adversely affect the adjoining uses. b. The additional FAR will not adversely affect the local circulation system. c. The use characteristics are substantially similar to those envisioned by this General Plan Amendment. Adequate parking can be provided on-site. C. Traffic and Access Development on this site requires a detailed traffic analysis which studies project traffic impacts on the local circulation network including appropriate intersections and neighbor-hoods in adjoining jurisdictions. The City should consult with the adjoining jurisdictions to identify the inter- sections and neighborhoods to be studied. Special Project Areas - Winchester Drive-In Site 2. In conjunction with a development application for this site, the applicant shall submit information regarding off-site improvements proposed to mitigate traffic impacts and to improve site access. Details shall be provided on road improvement and intersection modifications. 3. The developer shall examine methods to ensure safe and convenient pedestrian linkage to the neighboring residential areas. D. Noise 1. Noise-generating facilities such as loading docks and mechanical equipment should be located away and/or buffered from residential areas. 2. A sound wall shall be constructed where the site adjoins residential uses. E. Landscaping 1. The future development should provide a landscape buffer along the westerly property line to create an attractive appearance when viewed from Highway 17. 2. Dense landscaping shall be provided along property lines abutting residential uses. The landscaping should block views of the development and ensure privacy for residents. 3. Landscaping should be provided throughout the parking areas to provide shade and visual relief. The developer is encouraged to provide planters at the ends of parking aisles and to intersperse planters within the aisles. 4. Landscaping should also be provided to filter views of the building mass. Fo Parking The developer should provide data on the parking demand for the specific use. Signage The developer shall submit a sign program. The sign program shall include: a. Off-site directional signs consistent with the Sign Requirements. b. Criteria for the placement and size of building identi-fication signs consistent with the Sign Regulations for industrial uses. Special Project Areas - Winchester Drive-In Site ./ General Plan Amendment to change the Land Use Element designation from Commercial to Industrial High Density Residential ' du/ac) m ii · III III II IIIII Mobile Home Park (21-27 ;~, m m m m , ·mil m · Public/Semi-Publi, /. .................... :\ ~ .......... : ............ :j,; .... ~ ..... C::.:.:~:: : :J ': :': :'::: :..' .~ ~.': :Z~.%'~'~ o'~ "~-: ~.'.;::: :~;:::: :':<~:,: .~ ~,- · .. · :':.::: t:: ;.~ o . :':. :~ ............ o(-- ~ ~ ' "" ,:::( :::::::::::::::::::::::: · ¢t , L~.): ,/?¢ /=':~ '1l-. \ J~ ..... % _gnland Pork Ln J : - :" J I . - '¢¢*'¢ / JL ......... '"' .... -r .... --r--~ ' ',. *~-- ..~--"~,-'*~.~--//-..- ? ..... · : .... :::::::::: · , ]%j · : : ! %'-¢/ ..................... . i.,~ · : , ~ I GENERAL PLAN MAP ~} (GP 06-02) Attachment C @pen Space Memo Memo To: Date: Re: Honorable Mayor Conant and Members of the City Council Bemard M. Strojny, City Manager Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director January 7, 1997 Questions of Councilmember Dean regarding the Open Space Element Background Councilmember Dean Asked four questions relating to the Open Space Element as follows: 1. Translate projected population into the number of acres needed to support our current Open Space goal of 4 acres per 1,000 residents. 2. Please describe in writing our Citys plan to acquire the open space necessary to meet the goal in tangible and specific steps. 3. What if the total dollar cost of acquisition? 4. How will we finance the expenditures identified above? The following responds to the corresponding questions: 1. The City Council adopted a new Open Space Element in 1990 in response to concerns about loss , of open space on school sites within the Campbell Union School District. The Open Space Element inventoried existing open space within the City and identified an open space standard the City would strive to attain. The open space standard equals 4.0 acres per 1000 population at the time of buildout estimated in 1990 to equal 38,500 persons. The standard was included in the Open Space Element to create a nexus for charging a development impact fee for park purposes. The attach "Hypothetical Open Space Strategy" identifies the breakdown of the 4.0 acres per 1000 standard. The standard included regional parks of 1.27 acres per 1000, 1.0 acres of community and neighborhood parks and 1.0 acres at existing school sites. The above open space components have already been met in the community. The Element identified .73 acres per 1000 population that remained unmet. This unmet community and neighborhood park need translated to 28.1 acres of needed open space at buildout. Since 1990, the City has added 4.1 acres at Jack Fischer Park and .35 acres at Hyde park reducing the need to 23.65 acres. The City also acquired .87 of an acre adjacent to the Community Center which has yet to be improved. Open Space Element January 7, 1997 Page 2 o The City Council adopted an Open Space Implementation Plan in December 1993, which identified priorities for purchase focusing on Naylor opportunities at surplus school sites (see attached). The City was not able to program specific sites because decisions to surplus certain properties are left to the School Districts. The attached "Hypothetical Open Space Strategy" includes potential acquisition and development of specific sites as an example of how the city may achieve the Open Space Element Goal. This is only an example and it relies on potential acquisition and development of either surplus sites or joint development of closed school sites and some private acquisition. In the attached example, the total cost is approximately $8.6 million. The actual amount necessary to meet the standard may vary depending on opportunities to purchase at Naylor rates and/or joint develop school sites. The attachment relies on available and projected park dedication of approximately $3.5 million leaving a deficit or unfunded amount of $5.1 million. The unfunded amount could be made up from other sources including Capital Improvement Reserve, Santa Clara County Open Space Authority, redevelopment funds within the project area, park dedication funds beyond the projected 38,500 population buildout, or other as yet to be identified sources. Hypothetical Open Space Strategy Open Space 4.0 Acres/1000 population Calculation Acres/1000 1990 Open Space Element Goal 4.0 Components: 1 acres at School Sites/1000 population 1.00 1.27 acres Existing Regional Acres/1000 population 1.27 1.0 acres existing community and neighborhood parks/1000 1.00 Subtotal 3.27 Deficiency Community & Neighborhood Parks/1000 population ~ Total 4.0 .73 acres/1000 population deficiency X 38,500 population [ 28.10 acres J Jack Fischer Park 4.10 acres Hyde Park 0.35 acres Subtotal 4.45 acres Net Deficit ~ 23.65 acres J Hypothetical Open Space Acquisition and Improvement Stratecjy Improvemt Total Potential Park Site or Expansion Acres Acquisition Cost Cost Cost $1,000s $1,000s $1,000s Campbell Community Center 0.87 City Owned 217.5 217.5 Coventry School Naylor 3.0 525 Market 2.0 1400 total 5.0 1925 1250 3175 Dover School 6.0 CUSD owned 1020 1020 -lazelwood School Joint Develop Fields 5,0 CUSD owned 1250 1250 Capri School Joint Develop Fields 6.0 'CUSD owned 1500 1500 Private parcel East Side or expansion 1.5 1050 375 1425 of existing parks. ? Totals 24.4 acres I 2975 5613 8588 ~Rounded $8.60 million Notes: Existing Park Fund 2.5 million 1. Market rate assumed at $700K/acre Future Park Fund 1.0 million 2. Naylor rate assumed at $175k/acre ~Total Park Fund $3.50 million 3. Park improvements assumed at $250k/acre 4. Joint Development of fields assumed at $170k/acre ~Unfunded $5.10 million 5. Costs could increase by approximately $2.5 million if any of the joint development sites are declared surplus and the City if required to purchase them. 21 April 1997 Madam Chairman: L~st Friday night we each received approximately 700 psges of material associated with Agenda Item ?. ~e Planning Commissioners are asked to issue five resolutions that generate 25 pages of complex findings and conditions of approval and 5 fxages of development policies. We are asked to attest that page after page of statements ~d staff opinio~m are tm~e, to certify that litermlly hundrec%~ of decla~tions ~re in compl.hmce with an even larger ntanber of l~ragraphs ft'om CEQA, th~. C~].iforni.a Code of Regulatiom~, %he Cali- fornia ~so~wces Cz)de, Local CEQA Implementi~g Guidelines, Statue CEQA Guide- lines, the General Plato, BAAQMD, CMA and on az~d on. To complicate our problem, the sb~tements that we are to attest to ~ tz~e are sometimes contradictory or simply opinions. In one ca~e, a condition of approval requires that the applicant implement ax R]}M/TSM Progr~nn Ptitigation measure while F~xhibit A says that such a program would be infeasible and not requir~xi. I'm sure that we all would also agree that it may take some time to validate the opinions that have L~en expressed. The referenced reg~lations were not includ~t in the packet that we are to use as a basis ~or our deliberations so we are unable to compare the state- ments developed For us with the regulations that require them. Any assertion we ,~]~e that our si~te~nts bring us into comp].ia~ce with the law would [~e unfounde~ and indefensible. (We can't dec]are that we are in compile,ce with the c~]e unless we know what the code says; we can only declare that s~f~ says it is so.) In o~ier For ta~ to confirm the validity of the declarations we're being asked to ~e we will have to conduct ~ extensive review of the info~tion on which the d~]aratio~ are ~. It is ~rte~onabl. e to ~k vol~teers with ~my other res~nsibilities to conduct such a review in the time that h~ ~en all~t~. For us to pr~e~ without ensurif~ that we ~ders~d fully the issues we are requlr~ to ~dress would ~ i rres~nsible ~d exhibit a r~kless disrega~ flor the welCare of the City that will l~ lor~ rememl~r~. To pr~x~e~ quickly mi~t not ~ proh~bit~ but it cer~nly would not ~ prudent. I urg~ that 3ou solicit a motion to cont,im~e this item ~mti]. the missioners haw,~ had time to ~qsess the m~lterJa] that must be revi~w~ before our res()]utiom~ ar(e develope~l. I .,~l ne Pbmni~ Cx)mmiss ion~r cc: Planning Comm.i s~ ioners JOHN A. DIQUISTO Council Member CITY OF SAN JOSl~, 801 NORTH FIRST STREET, ROOM 600 SAN JOS¢:, CA 95110-1797 (408) 277-5275 (408) 277-5192 (FAX) CALIFORNIA RECEIVED April 18, 1997 Planning Commission, City of Campbell 70 North First Street Campbell, CA. 95008 APR 2 2 1997 CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING DEPT, Honorable Planning Commission Members: I am writing to you today regarding the proposed project at the Winchester Drive-In site. My office has received many calls from San Jose residents who are concerned about potential traffic impacts on San Jose streets in the area and are opposed to this project. As I understand it, the potential impacts to City of San Jose streets could be extensive. As I understand it, the City of Campbell is proposing a Research and Development Park, which could attract as many as 3500 vehicles to the Streets of San Jose. Significant traffic problems, in that area, especially along Curtner and/or Union Avenues, are going to negatively impact both San Jose residents and Campbell residents. I am concerned about these and other potential traffic impacts on the streets and intersections in San Jose, and would like some time to refer this information to San Jose Planning Staff for additional review and comment. Sincerely, '-J~hnDiquisto C ~ Council Member, District 9 CC: Jim Derryberry, Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Jim Beall, Santa Clara County Supervisor Printed on Recycled Paper CITY OF CAMPBELL Community Development Department · Current Planning Date: To: From: Re: April 16 1997 Planning Commissioners Tim J. Haley, Associate Pla~ner 1'~ Campbell Technology Park - 535 Westchester Drive & 571 McGlincey Lane In order to allow you more time to study the environmental documents for the above- referenced project, prior to the April 22, 1997, Planning Commission meeting, please find enclosed the following: · Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (December 1996) · Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (October 1996) · Environmental Impact Report (1991) · Reduced Plan Set (Site Plan/Elevations) The written staff report will be distributed Friday, April 18, 1997, with the remainder of the PC Packet. If you have any questions or comments regarding this material, please do not hesitate to contact me at (408) 866-2144. 70 North First Street · Campbell, California 95OO8.1423 · TEL 408.866.2140 - F^X 408.866.8381 · TDD 408.866.2790 City of Campbell -- Community Development Department 70 N. First Street, Campbell, CA 95008 MEMORANDUM To: Site and Architectural Review Committee Tim J. Haley~,}~f~ From: Subject: PD 96-06/TS 97-01/S 97-05 535 Westchester Drive. Campbell Technology Park Date: April 10, 1997 The applicant is requesting approval of the following applications which require consideration by the Site and Architectural Review Committee: Planned Development Permit (PD 96-06) to allow the construction of a 330,000 square foot research and development park. B. Vested Tentative Subdivision Map (TS 97-01) to allow the creation of five lots. Site and Architectural Approval (S 97-05) to allow the construction of two off-premise signs and landscaping at the McGlincey Lane entrance to the site. Staff Comments: Site Plan: 1. Upgrade landscaping along the Highway 17 frontage of the project through working with CALTRANS to provide tree planting 40' o.c. Plan approval is required prior to building occupancy and planting installation to be completed within one year of building occupancy. 2. Enter an agreement with the City of Campbell, wherein mutual participation of upgrading the landscaping around the percolation ponds adjacent to the project site is achieved. Specific plans to be approved by the Santa Clara Valley Water District and plan approval and installation to be completed within five(5) years of project approval. 3. Fencing: The proposed fencing along the Highway 17 frontage to be a black clad 6' to 8' cyclone fence. Applicant to investigate the provision of an open style fence along the southerly property line adjacent to the percolation pond. Fencing plan to be approved by the site and architectural review committee in conjunction with the landscaping and irrigation plan prior to the issuance of building permits. Elevations 4. Applicant to introduce a building plane offset of approximately 2 feet or to add an additional trellis element for the concrete wall features on buildings A, B ,and C. 5. Applicant to investigate the extension of the concrete parapet treatment at building comers where the radius bullnose treatment is shown. 6. All roof mounted equipment to be screened by the proposed parapet walls or feature walls at the building entrances. Memorandum Re: Campbell Technology Park (SARC) April 10, 1997 Page 2 7. Applicant to investigate additional pillar treatments at the building entrances for buildings A,B, D and E. 8. Applicant to investigate the modification of the glass roof screen on Buildings D & E to parallel the decorative metal screen. Transportation Demand Management 9. Applicant to participate in a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program for future tenants and to incorporate participation in such program through the covenants, conditions and restrictions. This program to incorporate, but is not limited to the following: a. Provision of Bicycle Parking Facilities b. Provision of on site food service facilities c. Participation in shuttle / car pool service to public transit facilities such as light rail stations or park and ride lots when these facilities are constructed. d. Accommodation of bus stop locations, if public bus service is provided to the site. 10. Operation hours of exterior activities (i.e. loading and unloading, outdoor recreation) to be limited to the hours of 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. for buildings C,D and E. Pro|ect Data Site area: 23.5 acres Building area: 330,000 sq. ft. Number of Buildings: 3 two story buildings and 2 single story building Parking provided: 1320 parking spaces required - ratio 1/250 1271 parking spaces provided- ratio 1/259 Floor Area Ratio: .34 (Floor Area Ratio) Site Utilization: Building coverage 22 % Landscaping 27 % Paving/Asphalt 51% File Applicant Kirk Heinrichs, Redevelopment Manager interoffice MEMORANDUM To~ From: Subject: Date: CC: a~m Haley, Community Development Peter Eakland, Traffic Enginee~~ Winchester Drive-In Traffic Analysis w/o Cristich April 9, 1997 Kirk Heinrich, Bob Kass, Michelle Quinney, Bill Helms Because the EIR assumed access would be available to the Winchester Drive-In site from Cristich, it is important to document the traffic impacts of not having this access available, which will be the situation for at least the initial phase of the project. It can be assumed that no changes in traffic volumes will occur at any intersections except two unsignalized intersections on McGlincey -- McGlincey/Cristich and Access Road/McGlincey. This is the most important conclusion and can be easily justified. Previously, I did the analysis for the access road intersection but it was not documented. For this analysis, I have analyzed both intersections for the AM and PM peak hours with and without Cristich access. The summary for the level of service analysis is presented on Page 3-1 of the attached output. At the Access Road/McGlincey Road intersections, the impacts are minimal. The increase in delay is less than a second during both the AM and PM peak periods and does not exceed 4.6 seconds. For the McGlincey/Cristich intersection, the impacts are greater assuming continued all-ways stop control but the level of service is not worse than B during the AM peak period and C during the PM peak period. The greatest impact is an 8 second increase in delay for the PM peak period. The delays can be reduced for both the AM and PM peak periods by keeping stop sign control on the northbound and southbound approaches and by removing stop sign control on the westbound approach. In summary, not constructing Cristich at the beginning of the project or even after the project has been fully developed will not significantly degrade any intersections beyond what was presented in the EIR. Changes in traffic control at the McGlincey/Cristich intersection would guarantee that all levels of service presented in the EIR would also exist at all intersections even without Cristich access. Attachment WINWOCR.IN Wed Apr 9, 1997 11:35:39 Page 3-1 Intersection 4 Access Rd/McG1. (PM w/Cristich) 5 Access Rd/McGi.(AM w/Cristich) 6 Access Rd/McGi.(AM w/oCristich B 7 Access Rd/McG1. (PM w/oCristich C 8 Cristich/McG1 (AM w/Critstich) B 9 Cristich/McG1 (AM w/oCritstich B Impact Analysis Report Level Of Service Base Future Del/ V/ Del/ V/ LOS Veh C LOS Veh C C 4.5 0.000 C 4.5 0.000 B 0.7 0.000 B 0.7 0.000 1.4 0.000 B 1.4 0.000 4.6 0.000 C 4.6 0.000 7.4 0.637 B 7.4 0.637 9.0 0.698 B 9.0 0.698 B 5.1 0.843 B 5.1 0.843 C 13.9 0.895 C 13.9 0.895 B 2.6 0.000 B 2.6 0.000 B 2.6 0.000 B 2.6 0.000 # 10 Cristich/McG1 (PM w/Critstich) # 11 Cristich/McG1 (PM w/oCritstich # 12 Cristich/McG1 (AM w/oCrstch)-2 # 13 Cristich/McG1 (PM w/oCrstch) 2 Change in + 0.000 V/C + 0.000 V/C + 0.000 V/C + 0.000 V/C + 0.000 V/C + 0.000 V/C + 0.000 V/C + 0.000 V/C + 0.000 V/C + 0.000 V/C Traffix 6.8.0113 (c) 1997 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to City of Campbell, CA WINWOCR.IN Wed Apr 9, 1997 11:35:39 Page 4-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #4 Access Rd/McGi.(PM w/Cristich) ******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 4.5 Worst Case Level Of Service: C Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 220 0 11 Uncontrolled Include 1 0 1 0 0 Uncontrolled Include 0 0 0 1 0 10 407 0 0 163 42 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 220 0 11 10 407 0 0 163 42 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 232 0 12 11 428 0 0 172 44 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 232 0 12 11 428 0 0 172 44 Adjusted Volume Module: Grade: 0% 0% 0% 0% % Cycle/Cars: xxxx xxxx 0.01 0.88 0.01 0.88 xxxx xxxx % Truck/Comb: xxxx xxxx 0.08 0.03 0.08 0.03 xxxx xxxx PCE Adj: 1.10 1.10 1.10 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 Cycl/Car PCE: xxxx xxxx 0.50 1.00 0.50 1.00 xxxx xxxx Trck/Cmb PCE: xxxx xxxx 1.50 2.00 1.50 2.00 xxxx xxxx Adj Vol.: 0 0 0 247 0 12 11 428 0 0 172 44 Critical Gap Module: MoveUp Time:xxx~bx xxxx xxxxx 3.4 xxxx 2.6 2.1 xx:cx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.5 xxxx 5.5 5.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 633 xxxx 194 216 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxmcxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 456 xxxx 1105 1353 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxo~xx Adj Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.99 xxxx 1.00 1.00 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxoo(x Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 452 xxxx 1105 1353 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Level Of Service Module: Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 16.3 xxxx 3.3 2.7 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * C * A A * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR ~ RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * * ApproachDel: 0.0 15.7 0.1 0.0 Traffix 6.8.0113 (c) 1997 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to City of Campbell, CA WINWOCR.IN Wed Apr 9, 1997 11:35:39 Page 6-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #5 Access Rd/McGi.(AM w/Cristich) Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.7 Worst Case Level Of Service: B ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L T R L T - R L - T - R Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 49 0 7 10 123 0 0 173 205 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 49 0 7 10 123 0 0 173 205 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 52 0 7 11 129 0 0 182 216 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 52 0 7 11 129 0 0 182 216 Adjusted Volume Module: Grade: 0% 0% 0% 0% % Cycle/Cars: xxxx xxxx 0.01 0.88 0.01 0.88 xxxx xxxx % Truck/Comb: xxxx xxxx 0.08 0.03 0.08 0.03 xxxx xxxx PCE Adj: 1.10 1.10 1.10 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 Cycl/Car PCE: xxxx xxxx 0.50 1.00 0.50 1.00 xxxx xxxx Trck/Cmb PCE: xxxx xxxx 1.50 2.00 1.50 2.00 xxxx xxxx Adj Vol.: 0 0 0 55 0 8 11 129 0 0 182 216 Critical Gap Module: MoveUp Time:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.4 xxxx 2.6 2.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.5 xxxx 5.5 5.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 430 xxxx 290 398 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 597 xxx~x 987 1108 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Adj Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.99 xxxx 1.00 1.00 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 591 xxxx 987 1108 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Level Of Service Module: Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.7 xxxx 3.7 3.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * B * A A * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * * ApproachDel: 0.0 6.3 0.3 0.0 Traffix 6.8.0113 (c) 1997 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to City of Campbell, CA WIN-WOCR.IN Wed Apr 9, 1997 11:35:39 Page 8-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #6 Access Rd/McG1. (AM w/oCristich) Average Delay (sec/veh): 1.4 Worst Case Level Of Service: B ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L T - R L - T - R Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 49 0 23 Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Include Include 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 116 123 0 0 173 205 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 0 0 49 0 23 116 123 0 0 173 205 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Initial Bse: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 Adjusted Volume Module: Grade: 0% % Cycle/Cars: xxxx xxxx % Truck/Comb: PCE Adj: Cycl/Car PCE: Trck/Cmb PCE: Adj Vol.: 52 0 24 0 0 0 52 0 24 122 129 0 0 182 216 0 0 0 0 0 0 122 129 0 0 182 216 0% 0% 0% 0.01 0.88 0.01 0.88 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.08 0.03 0.08 0.03 xxxx xxxx 1.10 1.10 1.10 xxxx xxm~x xxxxx xxxx 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 xxxx xxxx 0.50 1.00 0.50 1.00 xxxx xmcxx xxxx xxxx 1.50 2.00 1.50 2.00 xxmcx xx3cx 0 0 0 55 0 26 130 129 0 0 182 216 Critical Gap Module: MoveUp Time:xxxxx x~ocx xxx~tx 3.4 xxxx 2.6 2.1 xmLxx xxxxx xxx-xx x~cxx xxxxx Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.5 xxxx 5.5 5.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 542 xxxx 290 398 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 514 xxxx 987 1108 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Adj Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.88 xxxx 1.00 1.00 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xmcxx xxxxx 454 xxxx 987 1108 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Level Of Service Module: Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 8.9 xxxx 3.7 3.7 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * B * A A * * * * * Movement: LT ~ LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * * Approach/Del: 0.0 7.3 1.8 0.0 Traffix 6.8.0113 (c) 1997 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to City of Campbell, CA WINWOCR.IN Wed Apr 9, 1997 11:35:39 Page 10-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #7 Access Rd/McGi.(PM w/oCristich) Average Delay (sec/veh): 4.6 Worst Case Level Of Service: C Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L T - R L T R L - T - R Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 220 0 95 24 407 0 0 163 42 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 220 0 95 24 407 0 0 163 42 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 232 0 100 25 428 0 0 172 44 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 232 0 100 25 428 0 0 172 44 Adjusted Volume Module: Grade: 0% % Cycle/Cars: xxxx xxxx % Truck/Comb: xxxx xxxx PCE Adj: 1.10 1.10 1.10 Cycl/Car PCE: xxxx xxxx Trck/Cmb PCE: xxxx xxxx Adj Vol.: 0 0 0 Critical Gap Module: MoveUp Time:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx Adj Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx Level Of Service Module: Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0% 0% 0% 0.01 0.88 0.01 0.88 xxxx xxxx 0.08 0.03 0.08 0.03 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.50 1.00 xxxx xxxx 1.50 2.00 1.50 2.00 xxxx xxxx 247 0 107 27 428 0 0 172 44 3.4 xxxx 2.6 2.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.5 xxxx 5.5 5.0 x~x xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 647 xxxx 194 216 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 447 xxxx 1105 1353 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.98 xxxx 1.00 1.00 xxxx xxxxx xxxx yocxx xxxxx 438 xxxx 1105 1353 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 17.4 xxxx 3.6 2.7 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx C * A A * * * * * LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR ~ RT LT - LTR - RT Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * * ApproachDel: 0.0 13.2 0.2 0.0 Traffix 6.8.0113 (c) 1997 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to City of Campbell, CA WINWOCR.IN Wed Apr 9, 1997 11:35:39 Page 12-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #8 Cristich/McG1 (AM w/Critstich) Cycle (sec): 1 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.637 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 7.4 Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: B Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 169 143 14 71 0 0 0 0 136 0 31 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 169 143 14 71 0 0 0 0 136 0 31 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 PHF Volume: 0 180 152 15 76 0 0 0 0 145 0 33 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 180 152 15 76 0 0 0 0 145 0 33 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 180 152 15 76 0 0 0 0 145 0 33 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 521 521 521 541 541 541 0 0 0 594 594 594 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.54 0.46 0.16 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.81 0.00 0.19 Final Sat.: 0 282 239 89 452 0 0 0 0 484 0 110 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.64 0.64 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.30 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ApproachV/S: 0.64 0.17 xxxxx 0.30 Level Of Service Module: Delay/Veh: 0.0 11.3 11.3 1.9 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 3.1 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 11.3 11.3 1.9 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 3.1 LOS by Move: * C C A A * * * * A * A ApproachDel: 11.3 1.9 xxxxxx 3.1 LOS by Appr: C A F A Traffix 6.8.0113 (c) 1997 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to City of Campbell, CA WINWOCR.IN Wed Apr 9, 1997 11:35:39 Page 14-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #9 Cristich/McG1 (AM w/oCritstich) Cycle (sec): 1 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.698 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 9.0 Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: B ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T - R L - T R L - T - R L T R Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 68 249 14 55 0 0 0 0 152 0 31 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 68 249 14 55 0 0 0 0 152 0 31 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 PHF Volume: 0 72 265 15 59 0 0 0 0 162 0 33 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 72 265 15 59 0 0 0 0 162 0 33 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 72 265 15 59 0 0 0 0 162 0 33 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 483 483 483 570 570 570 0 0 0 704 704 704 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.21 0.79 0.20 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.83 0.00 0.17 Final Sat.: 0 103 380 116 454 0 0 0 0 585 0 119 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.70 0.70 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.28 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ApproachV/S: 0.70 0.13 xxxxx 0.28 Level Of Service Module: Delay/Veh: 0.0 14.2 14.2 1.6 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 2.9 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 14.2 14.2 1.6 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 2.9 LOS by Move: * C C A A * * * * A * A ApproachDel: 14.2 1.6 xxx~3~x 2.9 LOS by Appr: C A F A Traffix 6.8.0113 (c) 1997 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to City of Campbell, CA WINWOCR.IN Wed Apr 9, 1997 11:35:39 Page 16-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #10 Cristich/McG1 (PM w/Critstich) Cycle (sec): 1 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.843 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 5.1 Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: B Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T - R L - T R L - T R L - T - R Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 92 155 24 187 0 0 0 0 182 0 20 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 92 155 24 187 0 0 0 0 182 0 20 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 PHF Volume: 0 98 165 26 199 0 0 0 0 194 0 21 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 98 165 26 199 0 0 0 0 194 0 21 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 98 165 26 199 0 0 0 0 194 0 21 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 312 312 312 467 467 467 0 0 0 592 592 592 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.37 0.63 0.12 0.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.00 0.10 Final Sat.: 312 116 196 54 413 0 0 0 0 534 0 58 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.84 0.84 0.48 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.36 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ApproachV/S: 0.42 0.48 xxxxx 0.36 Level Of Service Module: Delay/Veh: 0.0 24.6 24.6 6.2 6.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 4.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 24.6 24.6 6.2 6.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 4.0 LOS by Move: * D D B B * * * * A * A ApproachDel: 5.0 6.2 xxxxxx 4.0 LOS by Appr: A B F A ******************************************************************************** Traffix 6.8.0113 (c) 1997 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to City of Campbell, CA WINWOCR.IN Wed Apr 9, 1997 11:35:39 Page 18-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #11 Cristich/McG1 (PM w/oCritstich) Cycle (sec): 1 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.895 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 13.9 Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: C Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L - T R L - T - R L T R Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 78 169 24 103 0 0 0 0 266 0 20 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 78 169 24 103 0 0 0 0 266 0 20 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 PHF Volume: 0 83 180 26 110 0 0 0 0 283 0 21 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 83 180 26 110 0 0 0 0 283 0 21 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 83 180 26 110 0 0 0 0 283 0 21 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 294 294 294 433 433 433 0 0 0 750 750 750 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.32 0.68 0.19 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.00 0.07 Final Sat.: 0 93 201 83 350 0 0 0 0 698 0 52 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.89 0.89 0.31 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.41 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ApproachV/S: 0.89 0.31 xxxxx 0.41 Level Of Service Module: Delay/Veh: 0.0 29.9 29.9 3.3 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.7 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 29.9 29.9 3.3 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.7 0.0 LOS by Move: * D D A A * * * * A * ApproachDel: 29.9 3.3 xxxxxx 4.7 LOS by Appr: D A F A 4.7 1.00 4.7 A Traffix 6.8.0113 (c) 1997 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to City of Campbell, CA WINWOCR.IN Wed Apr 9, 1997 11:35:39 Page 20-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #12 Cristich/McG1 (AM w/oCrstch)-2way Average Delay (sec/veh): 2.6 Worst Case Level Of Service: B Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L o T ~ R L T - R L - T - R Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Lanes: 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 68 249 14 55 0 Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Include Include 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 152 31 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 68 249 14 55 0 0 0 0 0 152 31 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 PHF Volume: 0 72 265 15 59 0 0 0 0 0 162 33 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 72 265 15 59 0 0 0 0 0 162 33 Adjusted Volume Module: Grade: 0% 0% 0% 0% % Cycle/Cars: 0.01 0.88 0.01 0.88 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx % Truck/Comb: 0.08 0.03 0.08 0.03 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx PCE Adj: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 Cycl/Car PCE: 0.50 1.00 0.50 1.00 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Trck/Cmb PCE: 1.50 2.00 1.50 2.00 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Adj Vol.: 0 77 282 16 62 0 0 0 0 0 162 33 Critical Gap Module: MoveUp Time:xxxxx 3.3 2.6 3.4 3.3 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Critical Gp:xxxxx 6.0 5.5 6.5 6.0 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx 195 0 347 178 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxyocx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx 862 1385 667 880 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Adj Cap: xxxx 1.00 1.00 0.74 1.00 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxmcx xxxx xxxx xyJocx Move Cap.: xxxx 862 1385 495 880 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Level Of Service Module: Stopped Del:xxxxx 4.6 3.2 LOS by Move: * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx 1225 Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx 4.1 Shared LOS: * * A ApproachDel: 3.5 7.5 4.4 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxx~cx xxxx xyoocx LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT 760 xx_xx xxocxx xocxx xxo~x xocxxx xxxx xl~xx ~ccxocx 5.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxocx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxo~xx 5.0 0.0 0.0 Traffix 6.8.0113 (c) 1997 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to City of Campbell, CA WINWOCR.IN Wed Apr 9, 1997 11:35:39 Page 22-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #13 Cristich/McG1 (PM w/oCrstch) 2way Average Delay (sec/veh): 2.6 Worst Case Level Of Service: B Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L - T - R L - T - R L T R Control: Stop Si~n Stop Si~n Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 78 169 24 103 0 0 0 0 0 266 20 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 78 169 24 103 0 0 0 0 0 266 20 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 PHF Volume: 0 83 180 26 110 0 0 0 0 0 283 21 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 83 180 26 110 0 0 0 0 0 283 21 Adjusted Volume Module: Grade: 0% 0% 0% 0% % Cycle/Cars: 0.01 0.88 0.01 0.88 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx % Truck/Comb: 0.08 0.03 0.08 0.03 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx PCE Adj: x~u~x xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxaLxx 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 Cycl/Car PCE: 0.50 1.00 0.50 1.00 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Trck/Cmb PCE: 1.50 2.00 1.50 2.00 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Adj Vol.: 0 88 191 27 117 0 0 0 0 0 283 21 Critical Gap Module: MoveUp Time:xxxxx 3.3 2.6 3.4 3.3 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx x~ucxx xxxxx xxxx xx~xx Critical Gp:xxxxx 6.0 5.5 6.5 6.0 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx 304 0 425 294 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx x~n~x xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx 755 1385 601 765 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Adj Cap: xxxx 1.00 1.00 0.78 1.00 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx 755 1385 471 765 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Level Of Service Module: Stopped Del:xxxxx 5.4 3.0 LOS by Move: * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx 1096 Shrd StpDel:xxxxxxxxx 4.3 Shared LOS: * * A Approach]Del: 3.7 8.1 5.5 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT 684 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.0 0.0 0.0 Traffix 6.8.0113 (c) 1997 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to City of Campbell, CA WINWOCR.IN Wed Apr 9, 1997 11:35:39 Page 1-1 Turning Movement Report Volume North_bound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total Type Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Volume #13 Cristich/McG1 (PM w/oCrstch) 2way Base 0 78 169 24 103 0 0 0 0 0 266 20 660 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 78 169 24 103 0 0 0 0 0 266 20 660 #12 Cristich/McG1 (AM w/oCrstch)-2way Base 0 68 249 14 55 0 0 0 0 0 152 31 569 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 68 249 14 55 0 0 0 0 0 152 31 569 #4 Access Rd/McG1. (PM w/Cristich) Base 0 0 0 220 0 11 10 407 0 0 163 42 853 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 220 0 11 10 407 0 0 163 42 853 #5 Access Rd/McG1. (AM w/Cristich) Base 0 0 0 49 0 7 10 123 0 0 173 205 567 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 49 0 7 10 123 0 0 173 205 567 #6 Access Rd/McG1. (AM w/oCristich) Base 0 0 0 49 0 23 116 123 0 0 173 205 689' Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 49 0 23 116 123 0 0 173 205 689 #7 Access Rd/McG1. (PM w/oCristich) Base 0 0 0 220 0 95 24 407 0 0 163 42 951 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 220 0 95 24 407 0 0 163 42 951 #8 Cristich/McG1 (AM w/Critstich) Base 0 169 143 14 71 0 0 0 0 136 0 31 564 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 169 143 14 71 0 0 0 0 136 0 31 564 #9 Cristich/McG1 (AM w/oCritstich) Base 0 68 249 14 55 0 0 0 0 152 0 31 569 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 68 249 14 55 0 0 0 0 152 0 31 569 #10 Cristich/McG1 (PM w/Critstich) Base 0 92 155 24 187 0 0 0 0 182 0 20 660 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 92 155 24 187 0 0 0 0 182 0 20 660 #11 Cristich/McG1 (PM w/oCritstich) Base 0 78 169 24 103 0 0 0 0 266 0 20 660 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 78 169 24 103 0 0 0 0 266 0 20 660 Traffix 6.8.0113 (c) 1997 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to City of Campbell, CA WINWOCR.IN Wed Apr 9, 1997 11:35:39 Page 2-1 Link Volume Report Volume NB Link SB Link EB Link Type In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total WB Link Total In Out Total Volume #13 Cristich/McG1 (PM w/oCrstch) 2way Base 247 103 350 127 98 225 0 266 266 286 193 479 1320 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 247 103 350 127 98 225 0 266 266 286 193 479 1320 #12 Cristich/McG1 (AM w/oCrstch)-2way Base 317 55 372 69 99 168 0 152 152 183 263 446 1138 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 317 55 372 69 99 168 0 152 152 183 263 446 1138 #4 Access Rd/McGi.(PM w/Cristich) Base 0 0 0 231 52 283 417 174 591 205 627 832 1706 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 231 52 283 417 174 591 205 627 832 1706 #5 Access Rd/McG1. (AM w/Cristich) Base 0 0 0 56 215 271 133 180 313 378 172 550 1134 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 56 215 271 133 180 313 378 172 550 1134 #6 Access Rd/McG1. (AM w/oCristich) Base 0 0 0 72 321 393 239 196 435 378 172 550 1378 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 72 321 393 239 196 435 378 172 550 1378 #7 Access Rd/McGi.(PM w/oCristich) Base 0 0 0 315 66 381 431 258 689 205 627 832 1902 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 315 66 381 431 258 689 205 627 832 1902 #8 Cristich/McG1 (AM w/Critstich) Base 312 207 519 85 200 285 0 0 0 167 157 324 1128 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 312 207 519 85 200 285 0 0 0 167 157 324 1128 #9 Cristich/McG1 (AM w/oCritstich) Base 317 207 524 69 99 168 0 0 0 183 263 446 1138 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 317 207 524 69 99 168 0 0 0 183 263 446 1138 #10 Cristich/McG1 (PM w/Critstich) Base 247 369 616 211 112 323 0 0 0 202 179 381 1320 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 247 369 616 211 112 323 0 0 0 202 179 381 1320 #11 Cristich/McG1 (PM w/oCritstich) Base 247 369 616 127 98 225 0 0 0 286 193 479 1320 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 247 369 616 127 98 225 0 0 0 286 193 479 1320 Traffix 6.8.0113 (c) 1997 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to City of Campbell, CA Santa Clara Valley Water District 5750 ALMADEN EXPRESSWAY SAN JOSE, CA 95118-3686 TELEPHONE (408) 265-2600 FACSIMILE (408) 266-0271 AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER April 3, 1997 APR 0 ? 397 CITY OF CA~,IPBELL ~LPLANNINL~ DEPT, / Mr. Tim Haley Community Development Department City of Campbell 70 North First Street Campbell, CA 95008-1436 Dear Mr. Haley: Subject: Campbell Technology Park--535 Westchester Drive, TS 97-01 The Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) has reviewed the vesting tentative map received on March 14, 1997, for the former Winchester Drive-In site. The District's comments remain the same as in our January 27, 1997, letter to you. Sincerely, Sue A. Tippets, P.E. Supervising Engineer Community Projects Review Unit recycled paper ~S A N T A CLARA ~,~'~ Valley Transportation Authority April 1, 1997 City of Campbell Community Development Department 70 North First Street Campbell, CA 95008 tVED ~: o., ~ 3 1997 CiTY OF CAMPBELL. PLaNNiNG DE. PT, Subject: File No. TS 97-01 / Campbell Technology Park Dear Mr. Haley: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) staff have reviewed the project referenced above. We have no comments. Thank you for the opportunity to review this ,project. If you have any questions, please call Roy Molseed of my staff at (408) 321-5784. Sincerely, Environmental Program Manager TDR:RM:kh -~---~~~906 · Administration 408.321.5555 · Customer Service 408.321.2300 CITY OF CAMPBELL Community Development Department · Current Planning March 12, 1997 To: Distribution From: Tim J. Haley, Associate Planner ~ Re: Proposed Development - 535 Westchester Drive (TS 97-01) The attached vested tentative map has been submitted and is being forwarded to you for your review and comment. Please provide written comment at your earliest convenience or by April 2, 1997. This project will be reviewed by the Planning Commission on April 8, 1997. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me at (408) 866-2144. Distribution City of San Jose Planning Department Town of Los Gatos Planning Department Santa Clara County Planning Department ABAG BAAQMD San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Transportation Agency LAFCO Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation San Jose Water Company Pacific Bell PG&E Green Valley Disposal Santa Clara Valley Water District West Valley Sanitation District Campbell Union Elementary School District Moreland School District Cambrian School District Campbell Union High School District CC: Kirk Heinrichs, Redevelopment Manager Ken Neumeister, Project Manager Michelle Quinney, City Engineer 70 North First Street · Campbell, California 95008.1423 . TEL 408.866.2140 · F^X 408.866.8381 · TDD 408.866.2790 Tentative Application ~ or More Lots) Planning Department Subdivision Map 70 North First St~, Ca~,b~, Califo,~ 95008 (408) 866-2140 A.qSESK)R'SPARCEL~ 412-29-06 & 07 WTA Campbell Tech~lology Park. I.I .C.. 900 Welch Road, Suite l0 CIF~/S~ATF~ Palo Alto, CA 2~-1~ ( 41 5 ) 322-21 21 Z~. 94303-0854 PI~3~~ Redevelopment Agency - City of Campbell ~D~ 70 North First Street ~/ST^~ Campbel 1, CA 408) 866-2110 ~ 95008 ~ William J. Wa§ner (HMH, ~)D~ P. 0. Box 611510 CIIY/STATF~ San Jose. CA CONTA~~: William Wagner Inc.) 21~~ (40F~) z~87-??~3~ Z~. 95161 -151 0 AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE(S): The undersigned person(s), having an interest in the above-described property, hereby make this application in accordance with the provisions of the Campbell Municipal Code; and, hereby certify NOTE: Staff's requLredVby State Law to notify applicants of the completeness of their applications within 30 days. Only those applications which are found complete will be processed. Fee Paid: Completeness Letter:. 200 Foot Noflc~ Mailed: Press Notice Published: Categorical Exemption: OFFICE USE ONLY Receipt No: PC Meeting: PC Action: CC Meeting: CC Action: Rvsd.8/30/93 Tentative Map Attachment B Environmental Assessment PROIECT SUMMARY INFORMATION TO BE FILLED OUT BY APPLICANT Zoning: PD - Pl armed Development General Plan Designation: Proposed Use: R&F}/light Tndu~trial Number of Proposed Lots: 7 Gross Site Size: 2 2.7 2 Surrounding Uses: North: Freeway, Route 17 East: -Commercial- PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL Average Lot Size: Net Site Size: South: Mobile Homes & Industrial West: Existing Use: Vacant 3.1+/- Acres SCVWCD & Industrial Freeway, Route 17 PARK Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Yes No X X X 1. Change in existing features of any lakes, hills, or substantial alteration of ground contours. 2. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads. 3. Change in pattern, scale or character of the general area surrounding the project. 4. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. 5. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. 6. Change in lake, stream or ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns. 7. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. 8. Proposed development is on a filled site or on a slope of 10 percent or more. 9. Use of and/or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives. 10. Substantial change in the demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, etc.). 11. Substantial increase in the demand for fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.). 12. Relationship to larger project or series of projects. 13. Additional traffic generation or parking demand. Discuss below all ofthe aboveitemschecked yes. (Attach additionalsheets as necessary) This is a request for a Tentative Map. Specific environmental issues are addressed within the Planned Development Rezoninq and EIR. Thqs Map is not chanqin§ the Land Use. Rvsd. 919192 Tentative Map Page 2 Environemntal Assessment 14. Describe the project site as it exists, include information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site. This site was a Drive-In Theater from the mid-1960s until 1982. The site is vacant and owned by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Campbell. The site has no significant flora or fauna. No cultural., historical or scenic features of significance exist. The site is relatively flat with a gentle slope to the north. Ihe soil is Class I and II. 15. Describe surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the intensity of land use and the scale of development (height, frontage, setbacks, etc.) North and west of the site is the State of California Route 17 Freeway. EasterlY of the site is the Paso de Palomas Mobile Home Park and light lnoustr~al land uses. Southerly of the site is light industrial uses and the S.C.V.W.C.D. "Duncan"'percotation ponds. Tho mroa hm~ nn significant historical or scenic areas. Thi~ project will nnt significantly affect the fliqht patterns of the birds that visit the adjacent percolation ponds. The freeway and the mobile home park have mature landscapinq. This project will not change this landscaping. 16. Are there cu~ently any other developmentapp~cations assoc~ted with th~ propeRy (i.e. Site and Architectural Review, Planned Development Permit, etc.)? Ifs o, please lhtthem. P.D. Rezoning General Plan Revision Environmental Impact Report Rvsd. 9/9/92 Attachment C West Valley Sanitation District 4 Acknowledgement NOTICE TO APPLICANTS REGARDING EFFECT OF WASTE WATER TREATMENT CAPACrI'Y ON LAND DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS PURSUANT TO DEVELOPMENT OF APN: 412-29-06 & 07 Please take notice that no vested right to a building permit shall accrue as the result of the granting of any land development approvals and applications. Pursuant to the adoption of Ordinance 9.045 by West Valley Sanitation District 4, the agency providing the above described parcel(s) with sewer service, if the District's Manager and Engineer makes a determination that the issuance of a sewer connection permit to a building, or proposed building, on the above described property, will, in his opinion, cause the District to exceed its ability to treat adequately the waste water that would result from the issuance of such connection permit, then said permit may not be issued, and, hence, no building permit may be issued by this agency. If the sewer connection permit is issued, it may contain substantive conditions designed to decrease the waste water associated with any land use approval. A CKNOWLEDGEMEI'q'~... By signing below, the applicant acknowledges, at the time of application, that he/she fully understands the above. · Addre)s of Proposed Development ~pl~licant's Signatu~;,,e. Date Distribution Original to: West Valley Sanitation District No. 4 100 East Sunnyoaks Aven6e, Campbell, CA 95008 Copies to: File Applicant Rw.~. 711192 Attachment D Planning Commission Contribution Disclosure Form INFORMATION SHEET This form must be completed by applicants for, or persons who are the subject of, any proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use pending be/ore the Planning Commission. Important Notice: Basic Provisions of the Government Code Section 84308 I. If you are an applicant for, or the subject of, any proceedings involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use, you are prohibited from making a campaign contribution of $250 or more to any commissioner, his or her alternate, or any candidate for such position. This prohibition begins on the date your application is filed or the proceeding is otherwise initiated, and the prohibition ends three months after a final decision is rendered by the Planning Commission. In addition, no commissioner, alternate, or candidate may solicit or accept a campaign contribution of $250 or more from you during this period. These prohibitions also apply to yo~xr agents, and, if you are a closely held corporation to your majority shareholder as well. II. You must file the attached disclosure form and disclose whether you or your agent(s) have in the aggregate contributed $250 or more to any commissioner, his or her alternate, or any candidate for the position during the 12-month period preceding the filing of the application or the initiation of the proceeding. III. If you or your agent have made a contribution to any commissioner, alternate, or candidate dttring the 12 months preceding the decision on the application or proceeding, that commissioner must disq, alify himself or herself from the decision. However, disqualification is not required if the commissioner, alternate, or candidate retrains the campaign contribution within 30 days of learning about both the contribution and the proceedings. This form should be completed and filed with your application or with the first written document you file or submitted after the proceeding commences. 1. A proceeding involving "a license, permit, or other entitlement for use" includes all business, professional, trade and land use licenses and permits, and all other entitlements for use, including all entitlements for land use; all contracts (other than competitively bid, labor or personal employment contracts) and all franchises. 2. Your "agent" is someone who represents you in connection with a proceeding involving a license, permit or other entitlement for use. If an individual acting as an agent is also acting in his or her capacity as an employee or member of a law, architectural, engineering, consulting firm or similar business entity, both the business entity and the individual are "agents." 3. To determine whether a campaign contribution of $250 or more has been made by you, campaign contributions made by you within the preceding 12 months must be aggregated-with those made by your agent within the preceding 12 months or the period of the agency, whichever is shorter. Campaign contributions made to different commissioners/coun~ilrnembers, their alternates, or candidates are not aggregated. This notice summarizes the major requirements of Government Code Section 84308 of the Political Reform Act and 2 Cal. Adm. Code Sections 18438-18438.8. For more information, contact the Campbell City Attorney at (408) 866- 2125, or the Fair Political Practices Commission, 428 J Street, Suite 800, Sacramento, CA 95814, (916) 322-5901. Prepared by: Legal Division, Fair Political Practice Commission, May 1986 Rvsd. 711192 AttaOtmmt D Contr~ution Disclosure Form Page 2 TO BE FILLED OUT BY APPLICANT II. [ ~ IF CONTRIBUTIONS TOTALING $250 HAVE NOT BEEN MADE, CHECK HERE, AND SIGN BELOW IN SECTION III. TO BE COMPLETED ONLY IF CONTRIBLFI'IONS TOTALING $250 OR MORE HAVE BEEN MADE. NAME: ADDRESS: TELEPHONE NO: LIST COMMISSION MEMBER(S) TO WHOM YOU AND/OR YOUR AGENT MADE CAMPAIGN CONTP. IB~ONS TOTALING $250 OR MORE, AND THE DATES OF THOSE CONTRIBLFFIONS, (if off, er than yourselO (if other than yourselO (if other than yourseJO CONTRIBUTOR: DATE (S): AMOUNT (S): NAME: CONTRIBUTOR: DATE (S): AMOUNT (S): NAME: CONTRIBUTOR: DATE (S): AMOUNT (S): III. SIGNATURE Rvscl. 7/~/92 DATE: Tentative Map Attachment A Items to be Provided on Plans The following items should appear on a Tentative Map: 1. Date, north arrow, scale 2. Name and address of recorded owner(s) 3. Name and address of the subdivider 4. Name and address of person who prepared the map 5. Sufficient elevations or contours to determine the lay of the land, to City datum. 6. Locations, names, and widths of both existing and proposed streets 7. Existing and proposed easements widths, location and purposes 8. Parcel layout, approximate dimensions and number/letter 9. Acreage of each parcel 10. Existing building(s) 11. Public areas proposed 12. Names of adjoining property owners 13. Recorded maps of, or adjacent to, subject parcel 14. Established existing monument line 15. Basis of bearings 16. Existing property lines to be removed or changed (not to be shown on final map) 17. Existing trees (type, diameter, approximate drip line, for all trees with a diameter exceeding four inches measured four feet above grade). 18. Existing use of the parcel and existing zoning/generalplan NOTE: Permanent pipe monuments to be set at each new property comer. Rvsd. 813O193 City Clerk Please cc :and receipt for the foh~wtng monies. A. 1+ acres- Planned Development Permit E~ Review S4~.5 4,~.5 4~425 B. ~la~e Planned Development Permit E]~ Review 3,2ZS 3,.2~ 3,225 3,225 II. Minor:. A. Subdivision Map (5+ lots) Site and Architectural 10+ K S.F. Tentative Parcel Map (4<Lots) 2,150 2,150 Bo Site and Architectural 0-10 K S.F. Variance (Non-residential) Text Amendments Use Permit III. Miscellaneous: A. Variance (Residential) Modifications of Approval Modification PD Permit Reinstatements Revised Development Schedule Extensions of Time Bo Lot Line Adjustments Site and Architectural (Res.) (Each House) Signs (Each Sign) Fence Exception Promotional Events Co Appeals Downtown Development Perm/t Historic Preservation Zone, Use Permit, HP Permit 0 0 0 IV. Maps General Plan Text Zoning Ordinance Copies (per page) Refundable Deposit - Account 2203 Fire Department Review - Account 01.303.3322 Architectural Approval Subdivision Park Impact Fee - Account 295535.4920 6~ 18.00 22 1 50 150 ltD+ 10 per lot/unit For City Oerk On]y: Exception for Major Projects: It is anticipated that the application processing costs of selected major projects will significantly exceed the above fees. In these cases, the Community Development Director may collect a deposit and charge actual time spent to process the application based upon current hourly rates. Note Adopted by Resolution No. 8841 by City Council, City of Campl~l, 6/20/95. l~~~ S A N T A C L A R A Valley Transportation Authority March 1 O, 1997 City of Campbell Community Development Department 70 North First Street Campbell, CA 95008 Attention: Tim J. Haley Subject: File Nos. GP 96-02 and PD 96-06 / Campbell Technology Park Dear Mr. Haley: RECEW D HAR l Z 1997 CITY OF CAMPBELL PLAHNING DEPT./ Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) staff have reviewed the project referenced above. We have no comments. Thank you for the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions, please call Julie Render of my staff at (408) 321-5779. Sincerely, Environmental Program Manager jr4195 3331 North First Street · San Jose, CA 95134-1906 · Administration 408.321.5555 · Customer Service 408.321.2300 .0¥- CA~/~ CITY OF CAMPBELL Public Works Department February28,1997 Kenneth A.'Neumeister, Project Coordinator WTA and Huettig & Schromm, Inc., Applicant 900 Welch Road, Suite 10 Palo Alto, CA 94303-0854 Re.' Preliminary Vesting Tentative Map (VTM) 535 Westchester Drive Campbell Technology Center Dear Mr. Neumeister: On Friday, 2/21/97, a meeting was held at City Hall concerning the completeness of the preliminary VTM (Tract Map) for a subdivision prepared by your consultants. The meeting was attended by: 1. Kenneth Neumeister, Applicant's Representative 2. Bill Wagner, HMH, Applicant's Engineer 3. Harold Housley, City's Land Development Section 4. Chuck Gomez, City's Land Development Section 5. Tim Haley, City's Project Planner, attended first part of meeting 6. Kirk Heinrichs, City Redevelopment Agency Manager, attended meeting briefly Following these discussions, we received a preliminary VTM submittal on February 26. The City staff listed above met on Thursday, February 27, to discuss this submittal and has prepared the following list of additional information that must be provided on the VTM. Additional information which must be included with the preliminary VTM submittal is summarized as follows: Ao New Street ~omMcGlince¥ Lanetothe Propeay 1. Allassessorparcelsandlotlinesrel~edtothe proposed newpublic streetincluding: 412-30-042 & 044 412-31-002,020&029 70 North First Street - Campbell, California 95008.1423 · TEL 408.866.2150 - F^X 408.379.2572 /~EW PW FAX ~ TDD 408.866.2790 o All existing and proposed easements All current property interests, recorded and unrecorded, of all parties with current ownership and interest in the proposed new street. Include the recording information. Indication that irrevocable offers of dedication to the City will be recorded for the complete new street right-of-way, including the entire parcel located at the McGlincey entrance. (These documents will need to be prepared by the applicant, reviewed by the City, executed by the affected property owner and all holders of interest in the property title, and shall be recorded prior to recordation of the final map. Recording information will need to be shown on final map). New On-Site Public Street 1. Proposed street lights, street trees, and other landscaping areas within the public right- of-way. 2. Redesign of the on-site public street to provide the T-intersection as requested by the City Traffic Engineer. General 1. Preliminary grading and drainage plan for site and for future public access roadway from McGlincey showing storm stub-outs for Christich Lane. Show all pad elevations. 2. Show landscape areas and street lights in typical sections. Indication that maintenance agreements for maintenance of all landscaping in public right-of-way will be executed prior to recordation of final map. 3. Cross-section around perimeter of property where retaining walls might be needed. 4. All existing storm drain and utility easement across Paseo de Palomas that benefit the subject property. 5. Verification that the proposed emergency ingress and egress across Paseo de Palomas can be used for subject property, or indication that the requirement easements will be prepared and processed prior to final map recordation. 6. Proposed easements adequate to allow construction of future storm drain and other utilities. 7. Submit proposed public street name(s). (Final map to have approved street name shown). Providing the items listed above will allow us to process the VTM in the most expeditious manner. If you have any questions regarding the items requested, please give Harold Housley, Land Development Engineer, a call at 866-2158. Upon acceptance by the City of a complete VTM application, the Tract Map will be scheduled for processing by the Community Development Department. Based upon the completed application, the City staff will then be able to prepare recommended Conditions of Approval for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council. Sincerely, Michelle Quinney, P.E~. City Engineer CCi File - 535 Westchester Drive Peter Eakland, Traffic Engineer Tim Haley, Project Planner Kirk Heinrichs, Redevelopment Manager Harold Housley Robert Wagner, HMH H:\WORD~LANDDDEV~535WEST(JD) Santa Clara Valley Water District 5750 ALMADEN EXPRESSWAY SAN JOSE, CA 95118-3686 TELEPHONE (408) 265-2600 FACSIMILE (408) 266-0271 AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER February 19, 1997 Community Development Department City of Campbell Attention: Mr. Tim Haley 70 North First Street Campbell, CA 95008-1436 Dear Mr. Haley: Subject: Campbell Technology Park at 535 Westchester Drive, Files GP 96-02 and PD 96-06 The Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) has reviewed the general plan amendment, received on January 27, 1997, for the former Winchester Drive-In site. The District previously made comments on this development, and we have no additional comments at this time. Sincerely, Sue A. Tippets, P.E. Supervising Engineer Community Projects Review Unit recycled paper 13. Councilmember Dougherty suggested that it would be appropriate for the City Council to review the Strategic Plan at a Study Session prior to the next annual update. M/S: Watson/Dou~herty - that the City Council approve the list of Strategic Plan Action Strategies; approve three additional Objectives; and note ~nd f'de the December 1996 Action Strategies Report. Motion adopted unanimously. Allocation Process - Winchester Drive-in Site Proceeds City Manager Strojny - Staff Report dated February 18, 1997. Mayor Conant presented an overview of the proposed process which would establish a committee to provide recommendations regarding the allocation of net proceeds resulting from the sale of the Winchester Drive-in site. Mayor Conant stated that the members should be Campbell residents from different groups within the community who might benefit from the process, and requested that Councilmembers submit the name of their nominee to her by March 14. Councilmembers Dougherty and Dean stated that the formation of this commi~e is premature at this point and suggested that it might be better to wait until the actual net proceeds have been determined. M/S: Watson/Furtado - that the City Council establish a committee to provide recommendations regarding the allocation of net proceeds resulting from the sale of the Winchester Drive-in site. DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION: Councilmember Dougherty stated that he would support the motion because he believes the process needs to be supported by the City Council although he believes the timing is premature. Motion adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: Counciimembers: Dougherty, Watson, Furtado, Conant NOES: Councilmembers: Dean Mayor Conant asked Councilmembers Furtado and Dougherty to serve as Co-chairs of this Committee. Minutes of 2/18/97 City Council Meeting HUET[IG & SCHROMM, INC. February 10, 1997 City of Campbell Community Development Department - Current Planning 70 North First Street Campbell, CA 95008-1423 Attn.: Tim Haley - Assoc. Planner Re: Campbell Technology Park a WDT-Development Application Submittal- 535 Westchester Drive Dear Mr. Haley: The following project description and related information is given so as to allow those who review this project a comprehensive understanding of the project as proposed. In part, this should answer the questions that were raised at our earlier application review meeting. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Campbell Technology Park is being marketed as high-end R&D office buildings. We anticipate the majority of tenants will be computer / software development companies for which we are focusing our marketing. Although, a mix of light industrial development companies are also expected. Typically these type of R&D users require large open offices with administrative private offices, conference and training areas complemented by engineering development~ testing and assembly areas, including warehouse, shipping and receiving areas. Additionally, we anticipate that the larger users (60,000 - 100,000 s. f. tenants) might incorporate some type of food service facilities for their employees. The future development of the adjoining parcel, 0.59 acre parcel 6 on Westchester Drive, is anticipated to be a multi-use, possible "Deli" combination light industrial building with reciprocal access to the major site project. All proposed buildings have been designed for the flexibility to accommodate multiple tenants which would share a common entry lobby or utilize the many inset ground floor windows for conversion to entries pending owner architectural design review & City of Campbell Planning approvals. Our primary marketing strategy is to find tenants which will occupy an entire building or multiple buildings. It should be emphasized that at this stage of project development that specific uses and projections of employees would only be highly speculative. The proposed design (shell buildings, site planning - parking), project location and market forces will determine the final and ultimate use based on the City of Campbell's allowable uses for Industrial zoning areas. It is the owner's intention that the proposed design is what will be developed and that prospective 900 Welch Road, Suite 10 ·Palo Alto, California 94304 · (415)322-2121 · Fax: (415)322-5029 Stale Contractors License Number 129060 Campbell Technology Park a WTA-b~ ,¢lopment - Planning Application Project Description - page 2 tenants will not be given any significant opportunities to impact or alter the exterior design. Any modifications to the exteriors, including exterior storage enclosures, will require Owner architectural review, City of Campbell Planning and Building Department approvals. Campbell Technology Park is intended to provide high-end R&D Office and Industrial employment opportunities such as is allowed by the City of Campbell and other governmental regulations, except as limited by subsequently developed CC&Rs (i.e. prohibiting industrial uses not consistent with high-end R&D, interior & exterior improvement & repair requirements & approvals, site & landscape maintenance including improvement design requirements & restrictions, signage restrictions, storage & loading area maintenance & screening requirements, and limitations for uses that would cause or produce a nuisance to adjacent sites including: trucking deliveries, lighting, vibration, sound, glare, heat, smoke, and particulate matter, electro- mechanical & radiation, electromagnetic disturbances, radiation, air or water pollution, dust, emission of odorous toxic & non-toxic matter, and discharge of any material into any public sewer that violates any governing regulations). BUILDING & SITE DESIGN Five concrete tilt-up type III-N buildings are proposed totaling 330,000 square feet (note: building A&B will have a sixty foot non-buildable easement between them). All five buildings, three two-story and two one-story, incorporate similar overall design solutions (feature details and color) for concrete panels and glazing systems which provide a uniform design theme throughout the development. One of the major design goals for the project is to provide an individual identity for each building, within an overall project design theme. This has been accomplished by differing the design features for the main entries as well as placements and design of plazas. Additionally, landscape plant materials will provide differing accents at each building so as to provide variations within a common overall landscape theme. Each building incorporates one combination truck dock and grade level access truck area with two roll-up doors centrally located at each building which can be used by multiple tenants within the building. By design, this is intended not to encourage large areas for warehousing or manufacturing uses which would require numerous trucking facilities. Building entry features have been designed to incorporate screened areas for roof top mechanical units. Additional roof screening is anticipated for placement of HVAC or other equipment outside of these areas and will be screened with factory finished metal siding (color to match buildings) that comply with City of Campbell requirements. Access to the site, via a new public dedicated street, off McGlincey Lane will connect to the end of Cristch Lane. The main project entry drive incorporates a central tree lined promenade that provides vehicular access to all buildings entries. The site is also ringed with a common trucking-service access drive aisle which connects each of the truck dock areas at the rear of all buildings. A pedestrian walk-way system links each of the building via the central promenade for convenient access between buildings, the street and landscape buffer areas. Each building also has special designated van-pool parking spaces to encourage ride sharing. The site is designed to be accessible on a 24 hour basis (not gated), except for a locked gated emergency access drive at the north corner of the site. Parking areas will be provided with area lighting from poles and building wall pack lights. Also, a private security company will provide Campbell Technology Park a WTA-~- clopment - Planning Application Project Description - page 3 random patrols during nights, early mornings and weekends. It is anticipated that future tenants may, at their option, install additional security systems for building entry and video surveillance of the immediate exterior surroundings. Additionally, the CC&Rs will restrict trucking access, for security and noise reasons, to the site from the hours of 11 p.m. to 6:30 a.m.. Site amenity design features include two water features integrated within two plaza areas and a fifty foot wide landscape buffer strip the entire length of the adjacent Mobile Home Park which incorporates a par course and a picnic area. There are three half-court basketball areas incorporated within parking areas which have shared accessibility from adjacent buildings. The site planning design includes generous landscaping (+/- 27% of site area for total landscaping) and enhanced concrete paving at building entries, plazas, and main on-site drive intersection. A pre-cast concrete panel fencing system (+/-7 ft. tall) that creates a visual impact of crafted wood surrounds the site on three sides (north-residential, east-mobile home park, south-percolation pond and construction yard) with the freeway side having a open chain link fence,' utilized to discourage graffiti. Project and site monument signage will be developed as part of the Phase-One construction plans. Project signs (i.e. CAMPBELL TECHNOLOGY PARK) integrated within landscape areas will be located at both corners of the intersection at McGlincey and the new access road which identifies the project's main entrance. The main driveway entrance to the project will also have a project sign (CAMPBELL TECHNOLOGY PARK). The site is subdivided so that each building is placed within its own parcel and will have its own monument sign for address and tenant identification. Each sign will be placed within the landscape area directly in front of each building, adjacent to the main driveway promenade or public street. These tenant monument signs are intended to be permanent sign bases, cast in concrete, all of which will be uniform in size and design which complement the buildings. Surface mounted tenant names and/or logos will be applied to one side only. Multiple tenant buildings will allocate a pro-rata share of sign space. These signs will be developed as per City of Campbell sign standards and subsequent Planning Department review and approval. PHASING & CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULING Construction for the project will be phased and related to the acquisition of major tenantsTor each building. It is anticipated that Phase-One construction will begin as soon as all ordinances are effective and after the final close of escrow. In order to achieve this, construction plans will be submitted to the City of Campbell for permit review at approximately the same time as the City Councils final hearing for the project's approval. Phase-One construction will include the new public street and landscaping starting at McGlincey Lane, all required Off-Site improvements, all On-Site major infra-structure utilities (PG&E, water, sewer and storm drain), the main driveway access promenade and landscaping, perimeter trucki0g driveway for complete site access, landscape buffer adjacent to mobile home park, perimeter landscape area tree replacement and all fencing. Undeveloped areas will be rough graded for proper drainage and constructed with rough building pads. Tentative phased construction, pending on City approval and successful marketing, is anticipated to be as follows: · Phase-One - Building B construction and supporting improvements, as outline above, starting approximately July, 1997 completed by approximately April, 1998. · Phase-Two - Building C construction and related site improvements starting approximately January, 1998 completed by November, 1998. Campbell Technology Park a WTA-t. cvelopment - Planning Application Project Description - page 4 · Future Phases are dependent upon Tenant acquisition. ** Schedule subject to change: Regardless of tenant acquisition construction of at least one building is mandated, in the DDA, to begin within 24 months after close of escrow. I will be providing color copies of renderings of Building B (representative two story) and Building E (representative one story) for your use which should be available within the next week. Additionally, I have included copies which depict the proposed concrete fence for the site perimeter. Submittal for the Vesting Tentative Map should be completed within the next two weeks pending additional utility company coordination. Please let me know if this timing will impact the proposed Planning Commission hearing dates. If you should have any questions regarding the above items or the attached planning submittal, please contact me. Sinc.erely,, /~. / Kenneth A. Neumeister Project Manager- Architect CC: RDT HJW TSH Architects - P.Hockett HMH Eng. - B.Wagner Kikuchi & Assoc. - S. Kikuchi Pacific Gas and Electric ,..,~tpany 10900 North Blaney Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 February 4, 1997 City of Campbell 70 N. First Street Campbell, CA 95008 Attn: Tim J. Haley FE 8 0 5 1997 C!TY CF CA?,??E!.L Re.qardin.q: Campbell Technolo.q¥ Park, 535 Westchester Drive Dear Mr. Haley: In response to your letter dated January 22, 1997, PG&E has determined that: · PG&E will reinforce our existing overhead lines from PG&E's Substation to the customer's jobsite. · "The onsite improvements will fall under the normal provisions of Rules 15 and 16. PG&E does have the capability to handle the proposed 3 MW load by November 1, 1997. If the loads turn out to be greater than this, we will have to revisit the customer's loads to verify if we have the capacity for the additional increase. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to call me at (408) 725-2101. STEVE SMITH Industrial Power Engineer Santa Clara Valley Water District 5750 ALMADEN EXPRESSWAY SAN JOSE, CA 95118-3686 TELEPHONE (408) 265-2600 FACSIMILE (408) 266-0271 AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER January 27, 1997 Mr. Tim Haley Planning Department City of Campbell 70 North First Street Campbell, CA 95008 CITY OF.- PLA I ii G DEPT. Dear Mr. Haley: Subject: PD 96-06, 535 Westchester Drive The Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) has reviewed the preliminary site development plans for the Campbell Technology Park at the former Winchester Drive-In site, received on January 9, 1997. The plans do not provide sufficient detail at this point to provide significant comments. We note on Sheet Al.01 that the District's adjacent groundwater recharge pond is labeled "existing drainage pond." This notation should be corrected as no drainage may be directed to this pond. The landscaping plan shows perimeter street trees and that these trees will be of a deciduous variety. While it is difficult to determine the spacing and distance from our facility, we are concerned with the leaf drop from deciduous trees and the introduction of leaves into the ponds as they contribute to debris in the pond and increased maintenance. We prefer that an evergreen variety be used adjacent to the ponds. Additional comments can be made upon receipt of detailed drawings. Sincerely, Sue A. Tippets, P.E. Supervising Engineer Community Projects Review Unit recycled paper CITY OF CAMPBELL Community Development Department . Current Planning January 22, 1997 Referral Agencies Re: Campbell Technology Park GP 96-02, PD 96-06 535 Westchester Drive APN: 412-29-07, 412-30-35,42,43 Dear Reviewing Agency: The Community Development Department has received the above referenced application for the development of the project site (previously the Winchester Drive In) as a 330,000 square foot research and development park. The application requires the consideration of the following applications: 1) General Plan Amendment of the Land Use Element of the General Plan from Destination Commercial to Industrial and; 2) Planned Development Permit - Approval of plans, elevations and development schedule to allow the construction of 5 industrial buildings (330,000 square feet). The notice of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for this project was previously referred to your agency on July 17, 1996. The Campbell Redevelopment Agency certified this report as complete at its meeting of January 7, 1997. This application is being referred to your agency, pursuant to section 65352 of the California Government Code. Your comments are requested by March 10, 1997. If you should have any questions regarding this referral, please contact Tim Haley, Associate Planner, at (408) 866-2144. Since,r~gl,y~ Tim J. Haley Associate Planner Enclosure: Distribution: Reduced Plan City of San Jose, Planning Department Town of Los Gatos, Planning Department County of Santa Clara, Planning Department ABAG BAAQMD S J/SC Water Pollution Control Santa Clara Valley Non-Point Source Pollution Control Transportation Agency 70 North First Street - Campbell, California 95008.1423 . TEL 408.866.2140 · FAX 408.379.2572 · TDD 408.866.2790 Agency Referral Letter - GP 96-02 Page 2 Distribution: Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation San Jose Water Company Pacific Bell P,G & E. Green Valley Disposal Santa Clara Valley Water District West Valley Sanitation District Campbell Union Elementary School District Moreland School District Cambrian School District Campbell Union High School District cc: Kirk Heinrichs, Redevelopment Manager Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director Ken Neumeister, Project Manager .0¥' CA~ CITY OF CAMPBELL Community Development Department · Current Planning January 17, 1997 Mr. Kenneth A. Neumeister WTA-Development and Huettig & Schromm, Inc. 900 Welch Road, # 10 Palo Alto, CA 94304 R.e: Application Completeness- Campbell Technology Park GP 96-02 PD 96-06 535 Westchester Drive Dear Mr. Neumeister: The Community Development Depmtment has reviewed your application submittal of December 23, 1996 for the development of the Campbell Technology Park. Based upon a review of this submittal and pursuant to section 65943 of the California Government Code, this application has been determined to be incomplete. Those items necessary to complete the application are outlined below. Additionally, comments regarding the site layout, design and improvements are included for your consideration. These comments summarize the response from the various participants in Campbell's Development Review Process. Items necessary to complete application: Planned Development Permit Project use: 1) Provide a description of the project use. Anticipated research and development, storage/warehousing, manufacturing/processing and other expected uses should be described. A letter describing use, hours of operation, projected employees, need for hazardous material storage and restrictions regarding outdoor storage. 2) Provide for an allowance of retail or incidental retail uses on the site needed to support the primary use. 3) Delivery hours of the uses need to be better defined. 4) Describe security measures necessary for the site. Site Plan 1) Provide dimensions on all property lines. Illustrate existing and proposed easements. 2) Clearly depict all public streets in the project. Show the project to the center line of McGlincey Lane and the location of existing and proposed driveways. Provide sections of the following streets(Entry roadway from McGlincey Lane, new on site public and private streets, transition from future Cristich Lane to public street). Street sections should show street widths, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street lights and trees. 3) Provide preliminary grading and drainage plan. The plan needs to address the acceptance ofnmoff from Cristich Lane and the access roadway from McGlincey Lane. 4) Provide T- intersection as required by the City's Traffic Engineer per the attached memorandum. 5) Depict lane configurations on proposed public and private streets per recommendation of the City's Traffic Engineer. 70 North First Street · Campbell, California 95008.1423 · TEL 408.866.2140 . FAX 408.379.2572 · TDU 408.866.2790 Completeness Letter - PD 96-06, GP 96-02 Page 2 6) Provide facilities for various transportation modes. (Bicycles, pedestrians, and service vehicles) 7) Provide required fire department access through increased driveway widths around buildings of 30 feet and provide appropriate turning radius at corners or present alternative staging locations for ladder truck access. 8) Provide locations for significant fire protection system equipment such as sprinkler valves. 9) Show preliminary locations of utility transformers. 10) Depict project phasing. Each phase should illustrate parking, access and landscaping provided. 1 l) Preliminary concepts of project lighting should be shown. 12) Show buildings and driveways on adjacent properties from the McGlincey Lane access. Elevations 1) Provide additional detail of building window treatments and entries. Sections may be helpful to depict these architectural treatments. 2) Detail screening of roof mounted equipment and trash enclosure areas. 3) Submit eye level perspectives of the two building designs. 4) Indicate conceptual signage placement and size. A signing program may be helpful. 5) Provide sections of typical project fencing. It is recommended that an open style fencing be utilized along the Highway and adjacent to the percolation ponds. Landscaping: 1) Provide a tree retention and removal plan. The size and type of trees should be identified. Additional comments: Percolation Ponds The project site is adjacent to a percolation pond system operated by the Santa Clara Valley Water District. Staff would encourage the applicant to work with the District in further development of their facilities for landscaping and possibly recreation purposes. Staff will assist your office in facilitating a meeting with the Water District. Pedestrian Circulation Pedestrian circulation throughout the site needs further study. Please incorporate an efficient pathway or sidewalk system between buildings, par course and the public right of way. Perimeter Landscaping Expand the size of the landscaping area along the north and west property lines. Generally, a minimum 10 foot landscape area should be provided along the highway frontage and a 15 foot landscape area along the northern property line adjacent to residential development. Reduction in Parking A reduction of approximately 100 to 150 parking spaces may be justified based-upon available data for research and development facilities. A parking study of the anticipate research and development use may support such a reduction. This reduction would not require modifications in land use or changes in anticipated trips. Outdoor Amenities The development of outdoor amenities such as picnic tables, seating areas and shade structures is encouraged for employees. Further development of plaza areas as depicted between Building A and B are encouraged. Completeness Letter - PD 96-06, GP 96-02 Page 3 Building Entries The building entry treatment for buildings D and E could relate better to the other buildings in the complex. Further study of this treatment is recommended in terms of material use as well as scale of the entries. Project Entr~ and Building Orientation The project entry concept depicts the T intersection towards the center of the project as the primary project entrance. Please review the orientation of Building E and its entrance and entry driveway in relationship to this design concept. I have attached a preliminary review schedule for your entitlement process, based upon a revised submittal by February 1, 1997. If you should have any questions regarding these items or the schedule, please contact me at (408) 866- 2144. Sincerel~ya~ Tim J. Haley Associate Planner Enclosures: Preliminary Entitlement Schedule Traffic Memorandum - Peter Eakland - January 13, 1997 Development Review Comments- Chris Veargason - December 18, 1996 Memorandum Public Works - Harold Housley - January 6, 1997 CC: Kirk Heinrichs, Redevelopment Manager Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director Chris Veargason, Central Fire District Harold Housley, Land Development Engineer Linda Stansen, TSH Architects Bill Wagner, HMH, Incorporated Civil Engineers MEMORANDUM City of Campbell - Community Development Department 70 N. First Street, Campbell, CA 95008 Date: Re: Distribution Tim Haley, Associate Planner January 17, 1997 Tentative Schedule-Campbell Technology Park Request:. Ken Nenmeister has requested an anticipated schedule for the development of the Campbell Technology Park. Based upon previous discussions, the following applications and schetkfle should apply: ^) B) General Plan Amendment- Amend the land use designation from Destination Commercial to Industrial Planned Development Permit- Approval of a planned development pemdt allowing the conslruction of a research and development park on the project site. Schedule: January 31, 1997 February 3, 1997 March 13, 1997 Application Submittal Design Review Committee Distn~oufion (DRC) Planning Commission's Site and Architectural Review Committee Review March 25, 1997 April 15, 1997 Planning Commission Public Heating City Council Hearing (inn:oduction and first reading of ordinance) May 6, 1997 June 6, 1997 Distribution: Kkk Heinfichs Darryl Jones Bill Helms Steve Piasecki Robert Kass Peter Eakland Second reading of ord/nances Ordinances are effective C) Tentative Subdivision Map- Approval of the division of the property into 5 or more industrial parcels. Based upon a complete application submittal of January 31, 1997, the following schedule should apply. traffic MEMORANDUM To~ From: Subject: Date: Harold Housely, Development E~in~.~q/o/f Peter Eakland, Traffic Engineer \1 / - ' Winchester 'Drive-in Internal Circulation t January 13, 1997 I have reviewed the proposed internal circulation system proposed by the developer. My primary concerns are as follows: (1) the two access driveways that meet the proposed public roadway on curves; (2) inadequate throat for outbound traffic on the driveways that would unduly create congestion; (3) absence of an efficient pattern of sidewalks and crosswalks for pedestrians, and (4) absence of two outbound lanes for outbound movements on major driveways. The attached drawing presents recommendations designed to resolve these issues while retaining the basic circulation plan provided by the developer. Key elements are described below: McGlincey Access Road. Driveway A T-intersection would be provided with crosswalk on north side, two lanes on southbound and northbound approaches that do not have traffic control. On eastbound approach, provide left and right mm lanes. The driveway to Building E would be closed offto eliminate mining movement conflicts close to the intersection. Parking would be eliminated on access road to the north of intersection until driveway in back of Building E is reached, once again to eliminate conflicts close to the intersection. Public Access Road. Two lanes (right mm and left turn) would be provided eastbound at T-intersection with McGlincey access road. A driveway to Building E would be provided to frofit par'king lot. Southbound approach at intersection with central driveway should have a right and left mm .:lane. At intersection with west side driveway, only westbound fight in and eastbound right out would be provided. Left tums can not be handled safely' at this intersection. In order to eliminate conflicts near the intersection on the driveway, the parking aisle to the south of the driveway would only have westbound traffic out and the aisle to the north of the driveway would only have northbound traffic in. o Pedestrian movements. The drawing shows recommended pedestrian paths. Sidewalks are recommended in front of all buildings and on west side of Building E. These walkways make possible more efficient movement between buildings Harold House[y, Development Engineer Page 2 January 13, 1997 than is shown on original plan. It is likely that one company will have space in more than one building and efficient pedestrian walkways are important to create a campus-like atmosphere. Truck movements. Trucks for the most part will utilize the peripheral driveway. It is important that adequate turning radii be provided at comers that will be used by trucks. Of particular concern is track movements to Buildings C and D that can require more than a 90 degree mm depending upon the route taken. In summary, there are significant problems with the access and circulation plan presented, but they can be addressed within the context of the overall concept proposed. The changes that have been recommended would have a slight impact on the number of parking spaces provided. Approximately 38 spaces on the east side of Building E potentially would be lost. It might be possible to-save some of the spaces at the northern end of this section. j:l.s MEMORANDUM .0~' CAaf~ CITY OF CAMPBELL PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TO: Tim Haley, Project Planner DATE: 1/6/97 FROM: Michelle Quinney, City Engineer Harold Housley, Land Development Engineer,~,/-///.,~/ APPLICATION NO: PD 96-03 ADDRESS: 535 Westch~ster Drive APPLICANT: WTA Development PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 5 New Industrial Buildings at Former Drive-In Site COMPLETENESS COMMENTS: The site plan submitted by the applicant is incomplete. The additional information required has been previously summarized in our Preliminary Application Comments for PA 9644 (attached). Please refer to Items 1, 2, 4, 5, and 8 of said Preliminary Application Comments. It is understood the subject property will be subdivided and therefore a tentative parcel map application is also required. H:\545WEST.COA(WP)(JD) MEMORANDUM CITY OF CAMPBELL PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TO: FROM: APPLICATION NO: ADDRESS: APPLICANT: Tim Haley, Project Planner DATE: 12/24/96 Michelle Quinney, City Engineer ~/,ZJ~_ _..~ Harold Housley, Land Development Engine PA 9644 " 535 Westchester Drive WTA Development PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 5 new two story buildings at Winchester Drive-In Site PRELIMINARY APPLICATION COMMENTS: The following comments are intended to address some of the more significant issues and questions based on our review of the preliminary site plan: Street System Attached is a memorandum and red lined site plan from the City Traffic Engineer concerning the general design of the new public street and private driveway circulation. The street layout needs to be revised to eliminate the entrances/exits at curves in the roadway. T-intersections are preferred and Public Works would like to work with the applicant on a revision to the street/driveway system. It also appears that the curve radii and intersection angles do not comply with City standards. Typical Cross-Sections What typical street cross sections are proposed for the public street and private streets? Which streets are to be public, which private, and where does this transition take place. Please provide typical cross-sections that would show the proposed street widths, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and property lines for all streets within and surrounding the development, including Cristich Lane and how the p.roposed Cristich improvements will integrate with the new development improvements. :Show how the private access street from McGlincey Lane will be improved, and how the new improvements will integrate with the existing improvements on McGlincey. How will this access street and all private streets be maintained and by whom? Please indicate any phasing that may be done with the improvements. 3. Encroachment Permit and Requirements Prior to the approval of any final maps, and prior to the release of any building permits, several Public Works Engineering conditions must be met. The attached application packet for a Non-Utility Encroachment permit contains a checklist of items that must be completed prior to obtaining a Public Works clearance for the building permits for the site. Preliminary Grading and Drainage The grading and drainage concept is not shown. A full grading and drainage plan will be required. The plan needs to address the acceptance of runoff from Cristich Lane and the access street from McGlincey Lane and what the impact will be to the existing City storm drain system? Emergency Access Have legal emergency access rights been obtained on the north side of the mobile home park? Santa Clara Valley Water District The project must be reviewed by the Santa Clara Valley Water District. Record of Survey We understand the parcel site is one legal parcel, but a Record Survey will and new monumentation will be required for the new public street. be required Site Plan The minimum information required for a site plan is shown on Attachment "A". Additional information may be needed after further review. P.S. You already have the red lined site plan prepared by Peter Eakland. H:535WEST. COA(WP)(MP) CITY OF CAMPBELL Community Development Department · Current Planning January 7, 1997 Ms. Sue A. Tippets, P.E. Santa Clara Valley Water District 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose, CA 95118-3686 Re: PD 96-06 - 535 Westchester Drive - 330,000 s.f. Research & Development Park Dear Ms. Tippets: Please find attached plans submitted for your review and comment regarding a Planned Development application for the construction of a 330,000 square foot research and development facility to be located at 535 Westerchester Drive (former Winchester Drive- In site). The Community Development Department would like to receive your comments by January 20, 1997. Should you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at (408) 866-2144. Sincerely, Tim J. Haley Associate Planner 70 North First Street · Campbell, California 95008.1423 · TEL 408.866.2140 · F^X 408.379.2572 · TDD 408.866.2790 PUBLIC HEARINGS (*Indicates Joint Action) Certification of Supplemental EIR and Authorize Execution of Disposition and Development Agreement re: Sale of Winchester Drive-in Site (Resolution/Roll Call Vote) This is the time and place for a joint public hearing to consider the certification of the Supplemental EIR and execution of a Disposition and Development Agreement regarding the sale of the Winchester Drive-in site. Acting Redevelopment Manager Heinrichs - Staff Report dated January 7, 1997. Council/Agency Member Dougherty stated for the record that he submitted a number of questions and issues regarding the DDA and Supplemental EIR prior to the public hearing, which addressed various concerns regarding the language in the DDA. Acting Redevelopment Manager Heinrichs and Jack Nagle, Goldfarb and Lipman, responded to the various concerns raised by Council/Agency Member Dougherty. Council/Agency Member Dean stated this project appears to have a regional impact and questioned how the public hearing was advertised. Acting Redevelopment Manager Heim'ichs responded. Council/Agency Member Dean expressed concern that the legal noticing was insufficient. With regard to the Supplemental EIR, Council/Agency Member Dougherty asked whether a biological survey had been conducted on the site, and expressed concerns regarding the possibility of habitat on the site. Valerie Young representing CH2M Hill, environmental consultant, responded to Council/Agency Member Dougherty's questions stating that none of the biological features of the site had changed significantly from the environmental impact report of 1991-92. Ms. Young further stated that there was no evidence of endangered or special status species on the site then or now. Council/Agency Member Dean expressed concerns regarding the traffic study, the period of time in which the study was conducted, and the results of'the study. David Yazahri, representing the traffic consulting faro of Multi-Trans, responded to Council/Agency Member Dean's comments. Mayor/Chairperson Conant declared the public hearing open and asked if anyone ia the audience wished to speak. Minutes of Joint City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting Ed Berroza, 413 Waldo Road, Campbell, appeared before the City Council/RDA and spoke in support of open space for the Winchester Drive-in site, and expressed concerns that the traffic study is not adequate. John Dimberger, 1200 Steinway Avenue, Campbell, appeared before the City Council/RDA and spoke in support of open space for the Winchester Drive-in site. Patricia Shimokawa, 723 Peachtree Court, Campbell, appeared before the City Council/R.DA and spoke in support of open space for the Winchester Drive-in site. Kevin Creighton, West Valley Charter Lines, 240 Cristich Lane, Campbell, appeared before the City Council/R.DA and expressed concerns regarding the ingress and egress on Cristich I. ane. Steve Arambulla, 1249 Virginia Avenue, Campbell, appeared before the City Council/RDA and spoke in support of open space for the Winchester Drive-in site. Debbie Arambulla, 1249 Virginia Avenue, Campbell, appeared before the City Council/RDA and spoke in support of open space for the Winchester Drive-in site. Mark Brux, 573 Union Avenue, Campbell, appeared before the City Council/RDA and spoke in support of open space for the Winchester Drive-in site, and expressed traffic concerns. Susanne Waher, 1381 Estrellita Way, Campbell, appeared before the City Council/RDA and spoke in support of open space for the Winchester Drive-in site, and stated that the Open Space Element of the General Plan has not been taken into consideration with this particular project. Gordon Reynolds, 3293 Valley Square Lane, San Jose, appeared before the City Council/RDA and spoke in support of open space for the Winchester Drive-in site, and submitted a letter for the administrative record concerning the potential financial impact this project may have on the citizens of Campbell. Susan Karlins, 946 Norin Court, Campbell, appeared before the City Council/RDA and stated she was opposed to development of the site citing a ne. ed for more open space. Ms. Karlins also expressed traffic concerns. Bob Francis, 701 Parkdale Drive, Campbell, appeared before the City Council/RDA and spoke regarding the number of nearby school sites that have been sold and the impact the closures have had on open space in the City. Minutes of Joint City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting Jack Christian, 136 McBain Court, Campbell, appeared before the City Council/RDA and spoke in support of open space for the Winchester Drive-in site. Mr. Christian submitted a letter for the administrative record citing concerns regarding the water supply to the site. Karyn Littlejohn, 2150 Villanova Road, San lose, appeared before the City Council/RDA and spoke in support of open space for the Winchester Drive-in site. David Sousjord, 946 Norin Court, Campbell, appeared before the City Council/RDA and presented a letter for the administrative record. Mr. Sousjord expressed concerns regarding the adequacy of the EIR, citing traffic and circulation impacts of'the project. Mr. Sousjord further stated that the Land Use, Circulation and Open Space elements of the General Plan are outdated and do not appear to meet basic statutory requirements. Roger Clapp, 15060 Becky Lane, Monte Sereno, appeared before the City Council/RDA and expressed concerns regarding health issues, the possible existence of asbestos on the site, and cited several deficiencies in the EIR. Shirley Joslin, 77 La Paz, Campbell, appeared before the City Council/RDA and spoke against open space on the Winchester Drive-in site citing concerns about noise and the impact it would have on the residents in the mobile home park. Dan Bryant, 41 Heritage Village Lane, Campbell, appeared before the City Council/RDA and expressed concerns regarding traffic circulation and the Housing Element of the General Plan was not considered in the EIR. Mr. Bryant submitted a letter for the administrative record. Jim Cantore, 4036 Cranford Circle, San Jose, appeared before the City Council/RDA and spoke in support of open space and stated that a compromise might be possible to achieve some type of open space on the site. Don Hebard, 205 Calado Avenue, Campbell, appeared before the City Council/RDA and expressed concerns that the DDA is seriously flawed and incomplete, and the Exclusive Rights Agreement and DDA are not signed by the entity authorized by the RDA Board. Mr. Hebard submitted a letter for the administrative record. Dawn Vadbunker, 1360 Burrows Road, Campbell, appeared before the City Council/RDA and spoke in support of open space on the site. Sonja Locke, 200 N. 2nd Street, Campbell, appeared before the City Council/R.DA and spoke in support of open space on the site. Neal Locke, 200 N. 2nd Street, Campbell, appeared before the City Council/RDA and spoke in support of open space on the site. Minutes of Joint City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting 4 Randy Sacks, 1603 Walters Avenue, Campbell, appeared before the City Council/RDA and spoke regarding the seismic element of the General Plan. Mr. Sacks presented a letter for the administrative record. Margie Purcell, 82 La Paz, Campbell, appeared before the City Council/RDA and spoke in support of the light industrial use proposed for the site, and submitted a letter for the administrative record. Ken Pearsall, 945 Norin Court, Campbell, appeared before the City Council/RDA and expressed concerns regarding the SEIR and the circulation component with specific reference to the egress/ingress. Mr. Pearsall further stated that the EIR is flawed and does not specifically name the secondary entrance/exit to the project as required by CEQA. Annie Cavallaro, 1227 Arroyo Seco Drive, Campbell, appeared before the City Council/RDA and expressed concerns regarding the inadequacy of the EIR and cited noise and traffic concerns. Ms. Cavallaro submitted a letter for the administrative record. Bill Richardson, 93 La Paz, Campbell, appeared before the City Council/RDA and presented a video presentation which he felt depicted the undemtilization of current open areas throughout the City. Barbara Campbell, 35 El Pasco, Campbell, appeared before the City Council/RDA and spoke in support of the light industrial development for the site. Merline Rasmusson, 9 La Paloma, Campbell, appeared before the City Council/RDA and spoke against open space on the site. Ms. Rasmusson presented a Petition signed by Campbell residents in favor of the sale of the Winchester Drive-in properly for the administrative record. Garnetta Annable, 951 Dry Creek Road, Campbell, appeared before the City Council/RDA and spoke in support of open space on the site, and submitted a letter for the administrative record. James Griffiths, 971 Dry Creek Road, Campbell, appeared before the City Council/RDA and spoke in support of open space on the site. Jim Stock, 956 Norin Court, Campbell, appeared before the City Council/RDA and spoke in support of open space on the site. Donald R. Burr, 1485 McBain Avenue, Campbell, appeared before the City Council/RDA and spoke in support of the DDA with WTA Development for development of the site. Minutes of Joint City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting Mike Kotowski, 571 N. Harrison Avenue, Campbell, appeared before the City Council/RDA and suggested that the developer incorporate some open space into the project. Susanne Waher, 1381 Estrellita Way, Campbell, appeared before the City Council/RDA and responded to comments made during the public hearing regarding the Sports Mall proposal. Recess/Reconvene Mayor/Chairperson Conant declared a recess at 12:00 a.m. The City Council/RDA'reconvened at 12:10 a.m. There being no one else wishing to speak, Mayor/Chairperson Conant closed the public hearing. Jack Nagle, Redevelopment Agency Counsel, appeared before the City Council/RDA and responded to issues raised by Mr. Hebard during the public hearing regarding a limited liability company and incompleteness of the DDA. Discussion followed regarding public improvements on Cristich Lane. Public Works Director Kass responded to questions raised by Council/Agency Member Dougherty regarding storm drains. M/S: Watson/Furtado - that the City Council/Agency Board adopt a concurrent resolution of the City of Campbell Redevelopment Agency (Resolution #1997-1) and the City of Campbell City Council (Resolution //9181) certifying a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report making findings required by the California Environmental Quality Act in consideration of a project to redevelop the former Winchester Drive-in site; and e M/S: Watson/Furtado - that the City Council/Agency Board adopt respective resolutions of the City Council of the City of Campbell (Resolution g9182) and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Campbell (Resolution #1997-2) authorizing execution of a Disposition and Development Agreement with Campbell Technology Park LLC, making specified findings, and making overriding considerations in consideration of a project to redevelop the former Winchester Drive-in site; and e M/S: Watson/Furtado - to direct the City Manager to prepare a work plan to be scheduled for a future Council/Agency Board Meeting, for determining how the projected proceeds from the sale of the Drive-in site will be apportioned. ]Minutes of Joint City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD DISCUSSION OF MOTIONS: Council/Agency Member Dougherty stated that he would be voting against the motions and expressed the following concerns: the Environmental Impact Report as it relates to traffic mitigation and the level of involvement required from the public transportation system; the noise that this site develops as it relates to previous Council actions regarding similar developments (i.e. P-Corn development) which is not consistent with the environmental impact report; and compliance of the ~IR in terms of the General Plan. With regard to the DDA, Council/Agency Member Dougherty stated he was not satisfied with the terms of the DDA. In terms of open space, Council/Agency Member Dougherty asked whether it is a good policy decision to sell the property because the City has a commitment to the community in the General Plan to provide an additional 24 acres of open space, and he would, therefore for the reasons stated, not support any of the motions. Council/Agency Member Watson stated that she would be voting in support of the motions for the following reasons: all of the City's current parks are currently in need of restoration and the City is unable to afford all of the improvements that are needed; the site is not a safe place for a park because of the access to the park through a commercial industrial area (McGlincey and Cristich); parks need to be located in neighborhoods where the children live; and the City must look to school sites that potentially will be closed (i.e. Coventry and Bucknall) and have the money available to purchase those properties. Council/Agency Member Watson stated that her responsibility is to her community and citizens, and her primary concern is safety. Council/Agency Member Watson further stated that one of the purposes of Redevelopment is to remove blight and upgrade an area which she believes this project will achieve. Council/Agency Member Dean stated that he would be voting against the motion for the following reasons: concern about the process particularly inadequate public noticing; a need for more recreational space; open space has slowly eroded over the last 15 years; access to the site (Cristich Lane) should be improved before the property is sold to allow a better return on the investment; and updating the General Plan should be the fa'st priority. Council/Agency Member Furtado stated that he would be v. oting in support of the motions for the following reasons: following an extensive process, including ample public input, the City determined that the WTA proposal was economically viable and reasonable; the purchase price is fair and allows some of the proceeds for the offsite expenses that are needed for Cristich Lane; the proposed use is consistent with the surrounding property; safety concerns about children coming into this area that is essentially industrial; development of the park is not economically feasible because the City does not have the dollars available to develop and maintain the area as a park; the site is not easily accessible to a majority of Campbell residents; if the City were to Minutes of Joint city Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting 7 develop and maintain this site as a park, it would consume all of the City's park revenues and not allow improvements/upgrades to other city recreational facilities; the uncertainty that additional state and federal funding cutbacks may occur again in the future; and what impacts the passage of Proposition 218 will have on local government. Mayor/Chairperson Conant stated that she would be voting in support of the motions for the following reasons: the City never purchased this property to make money, but to allow the Agency to conduct an analysis of the site and off-site improvement needs, narrow down the land use alternatives and facilitate site development to improve a blighted area; the City Council, past and present, has continued to support .the needs of youth in this community including providing one of the best recreational programs ia the County, supporting organized sports such as Little League, Bobby Sox and the Pony League, and increasing activities for teenage youth in the community; this development will allow the City to gain tax revenues as well as clean up a blighted area; this area is not safe for a park to be located in; and the health, safety and welfare of the community, particularly children, are of major concern. Council/Agency Members Dougherty and Dean expressed their concerns that the citizens have not been asked whether or not they would be willing to pay for a park and suggested that a ballot measure be considered. VOTE ON MOTIONS: 1) Motion #1 adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: Council/Agency Members: Watson, Furtado, Conant NOES: Council/Agency Members: Dougherty, Dean 2) Motion #2 adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: Council/Agency Members: Watson, Furtado, Conant NOES: Council/Agency Members: Dougherty, Dean 3) Motion #3 adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: Council/Agency Members: Watson, Furtado, Conant NOES: Council/Agency Members: Dougherty, Dean UNFINISHED BUSINESS There were no agendized items. Minutes of Joint City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting o NEW BUSINESS There were no agendized items. tmJOIjRN Mayor Conant adjourned the meeting at 1:55 a.m. APPROVED: ATTEST: Barbara D. Conant, Chairperson Anne Bybee, City Clerk l~linutes of Joint City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting 9 CITY OF CAMPBELL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REPORT Item//: 2. Category: Public Hearing Date: January 7, 1997 Title: Authorize the Executive Director of the Redevelopment Agency to execute a Disposition and Development Agreement with WTA Campbell Technology Park, LLC for the sale of the former Winchester Drive-In site, and certify the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report RECOMMENDATION That the City Council/Agency Board acting jointly do the following in order: Adopt a concurrent resolution of the City of Campbell Redevelopment Agency and the City of Campbell City Council certifying a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report making findings required by the California Environmental Quality Act in consideration of a project to redevelop the former Winchester Drive-In Site. Adopt respective resolutions of the City Council of the City of Campbell and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Campbell authorizing execution of a Disposition and Development Agreement with Campbell Technology Park LLC, making specified findings, and making overriding considerations in consideration of a project to redevelop the former Winchester Drive-In site. Direct the City Manager to prepare a work plant to be scheduled for a future Council/Agency Board meeting, for determining how the projected proceeds from the sale of the Drive-In site will be apportioned. BACKGROUND The former Winchester Drive-In site is a 23.5 acre property that has remained fallow, vacant and unproductive for the last 14 years after it closed as a Drive-In theater. It is situated in the McGlincey Lane area of the Central Campbell Redevelopment Project Area. The property is bordered by Highway 17, the Paseo de Palomas Mobile Home Park, and light industrial uses. After several failed attempts over the years to develop the property by the private sector, and after the Drive-In site went into foreclosure and the bank lost the property to the Federal Resolution Trust Corporation CRTC), the Redevelopment Agency acquired the Site in April, 1994 for $3,840,000. Total acquisition included five properties. The Drive-In site itself, and four separate properties totaling about 25 acres. Execution of DDA With WTA Campbell Technology Park Page Two January 7, 1997 Among the obstacles to development over the years include poor access to the site, inadequate infrastructure in the area, and the cost of providing utilities to the site. The Redevelopment Agency purchased the Drive-In site in recognition of the distressed condition of the property. The property clearly met the intent of redevelopment activities, and its purchase allowed the Agency to conduct an analysis of on-site and off-site improvement needs, narrow down land use alternatives, and facilitate site development. The Agency financed the purchase of the Site with $500,000 from Agency funds and a short term loan from the City for $3,340,000. This loan came from various City reserve funds as follows: $1.5 million from the City Reserve for advance to Redevelopment for Agency projects. This is reserved for advances to the Redevelopment Agency in the form of loans from the City's General Fund to help finance redevelopment projects. $1 million from the Community Center Reserve Fund. This reserve serves as a backup fund for debt service in case of financial emergency. It is also used to finance Community Center capital improvements. $630,000 in Capital Improvement Projects Reserve Fund. This reserve is set aside for capital improvements. $210,000 from interest reserve for Certificates of Participation which have been refunded. This reserve was established with the original Certificate of Participation issue to protect the debt service reserve against market rate fluctuations. In June of 1996, the Agency sold two of the five properties that would not contribute to the development of the Drive-In site for $770,000, leaving three properties totaling approximately 23.5 acres. The proceeds from the sale of the two properties currently remains in the Agency's unappropriated fund balance. For more than two years, the Agency has conducted public meetings, met with special interest groups, prepared an economic analysis of the Site and generally provided an exhaustive analysis of the highest and best use of the property. Attachment 1 of this report provides a summary of the public process that was exercised prior to choosing a developer for the Site. DISCUSSION On June 4, 1996 the Agency Board authorized the Executive Director to enter into an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with WTA Development, LLC (the "Developer") to determine the feasibility of terms and conditions under which a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) could be executed. Execution of DDA With WTA Campbell Technology Park Page Three January 7, 1997 Staff worked with WTA to identify required off-site improvements, development costs and the financial feasibility of developing the site. On September 17, 1996 a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was approved by the Agency Board establishing the basic business terms and Agency financial assistance. Staff continued to consult and brief the Agency Board in closed session over the next two months establishing negotiation parameters and discussing refinements of business terms and development concepts. On December 9, 1996 WTA Campbell Technology Park, LLC (the new incorporated name of the Developer) signed a DDA, the terms and conditions of which are within the negotiation parameters established by the Agency Board and within the financial terms established under the MOU. A summary of the major business terms of the DDA are as follows: Business Points Developer Responsibilities WTA Campbell Technology Park, LLC will purchase the 23.5 acre Drive-In site, associated parcels and easements for $8,000,000 and the Developer will construct a 330,000 square foot research and development/light industrial business park subject to obtaining the Planning Approvals from the City. Upon execution of a DDA by the Agency, the Developer will deposit either in cash or in the form of an irrevocable Letter of Credit, the amount of $250,000. o The Developer is responsible for the design, cost and construction of all on-site and off-site improvements as identified in the DDA associated with the Development of the property. Off-site costs to the Developer are approximately $2 million. Total project land acquisition, construction and financing costs are estimated at $43 million. Agency Responsibilities The Redevelopment Agency will reimburse the Developer up to $550,000 for the design and construction of a public storm drain system that must be extended through the project site and connected to a main in Union Avenue. This storm drain system is not required by the development in that the capacity currently available to the property is adequate to serve the proposed project. However, properties south of the Drive-In site including those on Cristich Lane and portions of McGlincey Lane do not have adequate storm drain and storm drain extension through Cristich Lane to Union Avenue is necessary to serve that portion of the McGlincey Lane Area. Execution of DDA With WTA Campbell Technology Park Page Four January 7, 1997 The Agency will provide good faith assistance to the Developer in obtaining the Planning Approvals and any other permits, approvals, easements, etc., necessary to construct the project in a timely manner. The Developer filed application to the Community Development Department for the Planning Approvals on December 23, 1996. The DDA stipulates that both the City and Developer must work toward processing the Planning Approvals in a timely manner. This business point does not preclude the City's discretion in considering the Planning Approvals. Upon request by the developer, the Agency will consider forming a benefit assessment district where the Developer is the sole assessee responsible for all associated costs with formation of such a district for the purpose of issuing bonds to finance public improvements. This would likely include the improvement of the McGlincey Lane access road and the development of a public street on-site. Timing of Acquisition Within thirty (30) days of the Planning Approvals becoming effective, the Developer will purchase the property. Conditions under which the Developer is not obligated to acquire the property and would be eligible for a refund of deposit. If the Planning Approvals and associated permits cannot be obtained, or, cannot be obtained in a timely manner as prescribed in the DDA, through no fault or lack of good faith effort by the Developer. If Planning Approvals are not granted or they are revoked due to an imposed legal or court action resulting in an invalidation of the approvals. If an unanticipated condition of development that has not already been identified or is not usual or customary for a project of this size and scale, is required by the City, that would materially affect the economic viability of the project and the Agency and Developer could not resolve the issue. Project Benefits As presented in earlier reports to the Agency Board, execution of this DDA provides several benefits and will serve to meet some goals and objectives of the Redevelopment Plan in the McGlincey Lane area. Execution of DDA With WTA Campbell Technology Park Page Five January 7, 1997 It will lead to the redevelopment of the largest vacant property in Campbell that has remained fallow, blighted and unproductive for the last 14 years. The development of the site with a high tech research and development business park will make Campbell a larger player in Silicon Valley as a potential place to do business. There is also an opportunity that the business park will generate sales tax depending on the type of tenant. 3. A high tech business park will create higher end employment opportunities in Campbell. Increased water pressure will be extended into the area providing adequate fire suppression for the McGlincey Lane area and providing redevelopment opportunities for other property owners that currently cannot redevelop due to lack of adequate fire flow. It will provide traffic improvements at critical intersections such as Union and McGlincey Lane and Curmer and McGlincey Lane that will facilitate traffic in the area. A one time construction tax fee of approximately $165,000 which historically has been appropriated to street maintenance. 7. The proceeds from the sale of the Drive-In site will allow for the following: a) Allow the Redevelopment Agency to retire the $3.34 million outstanding City loan used to acquire the Drive-In site. b) Retirement of the City loan will save the Redevelopment Agency approximately $185,000 a year in interest only payments, its debt service on the loan. c) The Agency will recover approximately $1 million it has expended over the last two and one-half years in acquisition and carrying costs related to the Drive-In site. These funds could be made available for other redevelopment projects. d) Fund the extension of needed storm drain facilities in the area identified in the Agency's Redevelopment Plan and AB 1290 Implementation Plan. e) Fund the improvement of Cristich Lane, a capital project identified in the Agency's Redevelopment Plan and AB 1290 Implementation Plan. After recovering expenses and implementing capital projects identified in a) through e), there will be a net return on investment to the Agency of approximately $2.2 million that will be available for other under-funded capital projects and programs. The net proceeds will be allocated in a manner approved by a subsequent action of the City Council/Agency Board. Execution of DDA With WTA Campbell Technology Park Page Six January 7, 1997 PLANNING APPROVALS Before the City Council/Agency Board is the DDA and EIR. This public hearing is not for consideration of the Planning Approvals. Upon certification of the EIR and execution of a DDA, the Developer must submit the appropriate development applications to the Community Development Department. The applications will be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council. These development applications will likely consist of a General Plan Amendment, Planned Development Permit, Tentative Subdivision Map and Site and Architectural approval. It is estimated that the planning approval process will take approximately four to five months to complete. The DDA does not, however, affect the City's discretion in considering the Planning Approvals for the Drive-In site. Review and approval of construction and engineering plans must also be completed prior to construction. PUBLIC NOTICE State law requires that a public notice be published in a newspaper of general circulation twice, a minimum of 14 days prior to a public hearing considering approval of a Disposition and Development Agreement. Public notice for this public heating was published in the December 18th and January 1st editions of the Campbell Express. Although not required, an additional display ad notice was published in the December 26th and January 2 issues of the San Jose Mercury News. While no mailed notices are required by State law for consideration of a DDA, CEQA requires notice to those persons who request a notice on the availability of the Final EIR. On December 18th approximately 450 mailed notices were sent out noticing this public heating and the availability of the Final SEIR to those business and property owners, and residents in the area that have requested notice over the last two and one-half years in which the Agency has facilitated the public process concerning the Drive-In site. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR Process On June 2, 1992 the Agency Board certified a Program EIR addressing potential environmental impacts associated with the expansion of the Redevelopment Project Area into the McGlincey Lane area and project specific analysis of potential environmental impacts associated with developing the former Drive-In site for box retail. As a condition of certification of the EIR, the City Council stated it would require a Supplemental EIR (SEIR) for any specific development proposed for the Drive-In site. This SEIR addresses both the DDA and the proposed development of the Drive-In site as a research and development business park serving to supplement the EIR certified in 1992. Execution of DDA With WTA Campbell Technology Park Page Seven January 7, 1997 On June 12, 1996 the Agency Board authorized staff to execute a consultant agreement with CH2MHILL, an environmental consulting f'u'm, to prepare the SEIR. On July 24, 1996 a public scoping meeting was conducted by staff and the consultant in the City Council Chambers to solicit public input. Mailed notices were sent to the business and property owners in the McGlincey Lane area and anyone over the last two years that has requested to be notified of public meetings concerning the Drive-In site (totaling approximately 450 persons). On August 7, 1996 the Notice of Preparation was issued to the State Clearing house and others. The required 30 day public review period ended September 6, 1996. Between October 2 and November 16, 1996 the Draft SEIR was issued to various federal, state and local public agencies, and was made available to the public for review and comment. A Notice of Availability (NOA) was sent out to those on the mailing list announcing the public review of this document. On October 29, 1996 a second meeting was conducted by staff and the consultant to answer questions regarding the Draft SEIR. This meeting was noticed at the same time the NOA was mailed out. The SEIR addresses environmental issues not covered in the 1992 EIR that are germane to the proposed project including Traffic Analysis, Noise, Air Quality, Land Use, Water, Storm Drain and Aesthetics. The Final SEIR was issued on December 18, 1996. The Final SEIR contains the Response to Comments to those persons who provided written comments to the SEIR. Written responses to those comments were provided and the SEIR was amended in certain areas where clarification or expansion on an issue were warranted. The Agency received a total of 12 comment letters; six coming from government agencies and six from individual citizens. The oral comments received at the public meeting of October 29, 1996 are also treated as a comment letter and appropriate written response is provided. Response TO Comments Several written comments submitted by the public raised issues on traffic and alternative uses (e.g. public park/open space). No concerns were raised by either the City of San Jose or the Santa Clara County Transportation Agency regarding the traffic analysis prepared for the project. The traffic study prepared identified most project traffic coming from Union Avenue to McGlincey Lane. The primary access to the site will be via the McGlincey Lane access easement. Several traffic mitigation measures are recommended in the SEIR including the signalization of Union and McGlincey Lane and the improvement of McGlincey Lane at Curmer to discourage commercial cut-through traffic on Curmer Avenue. Execution of DDA With WTA Campbell Technology Park Page Eight January 7, 1997 The City Council adopted a new Open Space Element in 1990. The Open Space Element prioritized acquisition and development of sites in neighborhoods deficient in open space. The Element established acquisition criteria that would be used when considering acquiring land for open space. During the Open Space Element process, the Drive-In site was not identified as a potential open space resource because it didn't meet the acquisition criteria. The site is located in an industrial area, and has poor visibility and poor vehicular and pedestrian access from the Union Avenue neighborhoods. Access from McGlincey Lane would serve only a small portion of Campbell residents at the southern end of the Union Avenue neighborhood, within a half mile distance. Staff and the EIR consultant (CH2MHILL) have prepared responses to each comment, some of which have resulted in minor text revisions that have been made in the Final SEIR to clarify some issues, as well as correct minor text errors. The comments received and the written responses to those comments, together with the Draft SEIR, constitute the Final SEIR for this project. Staff, the EIR consultant and the Redevelopment Agency's legal counsel fred that the Final SEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA. Prior to approving the DDA, the joint City Council/Agency Board must consider the environmental documentation and certify that it has reviewed and considered that information, and certify that the EIR has been completed in compliance with the CEQA Guidelines. The Council/Board must make the findings in the resolution with respect to any significant impacts as identified in the EIR. These findings are contained in the attached resolution which has been prepared by RDA legal counsel. CRISTICH LANE Cristich Lane is a private street that runs between McGlincey Lane and the Drive-In site abutting the site at the southwest corner. The improvement of Cristich Lane is not essential to the development of the Drive-In site since most of the project traffic is determined to be coming from Union Avenue via McGlincey Lane. However, the improvement of Cristich Lane would benefit circulation to the project site and serve the McGlincey Lane area. The City has had an established 60' public street planline for Cristich Lane on record for the last 30 years. The Central Campbell Redevelopment Plan identifies the improvement of Cristich Lane from a private street to a public street as a redevelopment objective and as a major step toward eliminating blight in the area. The improvement of Cristich Lane is important to the revitalization of the McGlincey Lane area in that it will increase property values, and generally provide incentive for property owners and businesses to improve and redevelop properties in the area. The acquisition of right-of-way and the cost of street improvements for Cristich Lane is estimated at $1.6 million. These improvements are not an Agency required project under the DDA. Execution of DDA With WTA Campbell Technology Park Page Nine January 7, 1997 HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 33433 REPORT Redevelopment law requires that prior to executing a DDA pursuant to the Agency's Redevelopment Plan, the DDA shall first be approved by the City Council by resolution. Attachment 2 of this report is a separate report that summarizes and describes the specifics of the sale of the Drive-In site, including the cost to the Agency, the estimated value of the interest being conveyed, an explanation of how the sale of the property will assist in eliminating blight, and finding that the consideration for the property is not less than fair market value or reuse value with the covenants and conditions contained in the DDA. HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 33445 The DDA provides for the Agency to reimburse the developer for the installation of public storm drain improvements. Section 33445 of the Health and Safety Code allows the use of redevelopment funds to pay for the cost of installation of public improvements if the following findings are made by the City Council. That the improvements are of general public benefit to the project area. Properties in the McGlincey Lane area are currently not connected to a public storm drain system. This improvement will provide several nonconforming properties to connect into an approved public system. That no other reasonable means of financing the improvements are available to the community. The proceeds from the sale of the Drive-In site will allow funding for the storm drain project. Existing redevelopment funds are not sufficient to fund this project. The funding of the public storm drain project will eliminate one or more blighted conditions inside the project area and is consistent with the Agency's AB 1290 Implementation Plan. The lack of an adequate public storm drain system in the area qualifies as a blighted condition in the project area, and the improvement of storm drain in the McGlincey Lane area is identified as a capital project in the Agency's Implementation Plan. TENANT RELOCATION One of the properties that is included in the Drive-In site disposition is a single family residence located at the northeast corner of McGlincey Lane and the access easement to the Drive-In site. The residents have rented the dwelling for the last nine years and were renting at the time the Agency acquired the property. With the execution of a DDA, under redevelopment law the Agency is obligated to assist the tenants with relocation to a comparable housing unit. This relocation includes moving assistance and rent assistance. Execution of DDA With WTA Campbell Technology Park Page Ten January 7, 1997 Staff has initiated discussions with the tenant and will report to the Agency Board at the appropriate time for authorization to provide relocation assistance. SALE PROCEEDS The City currently has several under-funded capital projects and programs including the Park Improvement Plan, the Campbell Community Center Master Plan (including the Campbell Theater Restoration Plan), and the Park Acquisition Fund. Upon execution of a DDA, the City Manager will prepare a work program and process for determining how the projected proceeds from the sale of the Drive-In site will be apportioned. That work program will be presented to the City Council/Agency Board at a future meeting. Whatever process is determined appropriate, it will include public participation. FISCAL IMPACT Property Sale The DDA will stipulate that the Developer will pay $8,000,000 in cash for the Site and the Agency will reimburse the developer up to $550,000 for installation of a public storm drain system. While not a business point in the DDA, The Agency anticipates it will also expend approximately $1.6 million for the improvement of Cristich Lane which will come from the sale proceeds. Given projected Agency expenses and proceeds as a result of the sale and development of the Drive-In site, it is estimated that the Agency will net a return of approximately $2,230,000, plus recover approximately $1,000,000 in land acquisition costs and carrying costs the Agency has expended over the last two and one-half years that will be available for capital projects. The projected net return on investment to the Agency is approximately 43 % over a three year period. Execution of DDA With WTA Campbell Technology Park Page Eleven Agency Proceeds Surplus McGlincey Properties Winchester Drive-In Site Total Proceeds A~encv Costs Land Acquisition Carrying Costs Storm Drain Improvements Contractual DDA Costs Gross Return Cristich Lane Improvements NET RETURN TO AGENCY January 7, 1997 $ 770,000 8.000.000 $8,770,000 $3,840,000 550,000 ~o,0oo $4.940.000 $3,830,000 $1.600.000 $2,230,000 Tax Increment Because this property is owned by the Redevelopment Agency, it is currently not on the property tax rolls and therefore it generates no property tax. The current assessed value of all property in the McGlincey Lane area is below the "frozen base" which means the Agency does not receive any revenue from this area. Development of the proposed project will result in a $35 to $40 million assessed value added to the tax rolls. While the Agency will never generate significant tax increment revenue in this area due to tax sharing agreements with other taxing entities, the development of this property will bring assessed property values up over the frozen base to a level where the 20% Housing Fund will accrue approximately $50,000 annually, and approximately $30,000 in tax increment will be generated for Redevelopment capital projects. ALTERNATIVES Do not authorize execution of the DDA. This is not recommended in that WTA Campbell Technology Park, LLC would likely terminate negotiations with the Agency and the action would discourage other interested developers from negotiating with the Agency. Execution of DDA With WTA Campbell Technology Park Page Twelve January 7, 1997 Amend the language in the DDA. Any substantive changes could jeopardize execution of a DDA with this Developer. Prepared by: Act~development Manager Approved by: ~ Executive ~D~r~ ~ Attachments: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Background Health and Safety Code Section 33343 Report Concurrent City Council/Agency Board £IR Resolution and Monitoring Plan Health and Safety Code Sections 33433 and 33445 Resolutions Preliminary Site Plan dated December 20, 1996 Disposition and Development Agreement (previously distributed) Draft and Final Supplemental EIR (previously distributed) j:\dda.rep :ile No. '~D Development Application. Planning Department 70 North First Street, Campbell, California 9500~ (40~) 866-2140 ADDRES& 9Z)O ~O~{a/q ~ =/~ lO DATE FILEE):. Attach a separate sheet listing the names and addresses of others you wish to receive copies of staff reports and agendas. AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE(S): The undersigned person(s), having an interest in the above-described property, hereby make this application in accordance with the provisions of the Campbell Municipal Code; and, hereby certify that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my/our knowledge and /Al~plicant's Signature I~, ~ ~ Date Property, Owher's gi'-gnature Date NOTE: Staff is required by State Law to notify applicants of the completeness of their applications within 30 days. Only those applications which are found complete will be placed on the Planning Commission Agenda. OFFICE USE ONLY PC Meeting: PC Action: CC Meeting: CC Action: Fee Paid: Receipt No: Completeness Letter Sent: 300 Foot Notices Mailed: Press Notice Published: Notice of Prep/Public Review: Notice of Determination: Rvsd. 7/31/92 Planned Development Permit Supplemental A~lication pROIECT SUMMARY INFORMATION TO BE FILLED OUT BY APPLICANT Zoning: P- O Proposed Use: Gross Floor Area: Floor Area Ratio: No. of Stories: t ~ 2 Net Lot Size: c3 Lot Coverage: 'Z'Z °/o Landscape Coverage: '2.c, o/~ Surrounding Uses: North: East: ~O -'~'~ Pavement Coverage: ~ ~/- South: ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Yes No 1. Change in existing features of any lakes, hills, or substantial alteration of ground contours. 2. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads. 3. Change in pattern, scale or character of the general area surrounding the project. 4. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. 5. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. 6. Change in lake, stream or ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns. 7. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. 8. Proposed development is on a filled site or on a slope of 10 percent or more. 9. Use of and/or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives. 10. Substantial change in the demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, etc.). 11. Substantial increase in the demand for fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.). 12. Relationship to larger project or series of projects. 13. Additional traffic generation or parking demand. Discuss below all of the abov,5 items checked y~. (Att4ch add~i,tional shpets,~s necessary) RVSD. 7/1/92 Planned Development Permit Su~tementat A~lication Page 3 14. Describe the project site as it exists, include information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site. 15. Describe surrounding properties, inc cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indic (height, frontage, setbacks, etc.) uding information on plants and animals, and any ate the intensity of land use and the scale of development RVSD. 7/1/92 Planned Development Permit Attachment A PROJECT SUMMARY Assessors Parcel Number: [/2- _ 59 . 0'7 Lot Size: Gross sq. ft. (Property to center line of street) 9,~.~oo Ne~: scI. ft. Utilization: Sq. ft. Building Coverage ~_~'~- (include cantilever portions) Landscape Coverage '24~ o00 Paving Coverage Percent % Floor Area Ratio: Total building sq. ft. divided by net lot size Adjacent Land Uses North South East West Use Parking Standard TOTAL /$ Compact dC'~4 Handicap 0.5 Restaurant and Assembly Uses Seating Count Residential Projects Unit Type Living Area Garage Area Total Area No. of Bedrooms Number of Units A B C Rvsd. 7/I/92 Attachment C West Valley Sanitation District 4 Acknowledgement NOTICE TO APPLICANTS REGARDING EFFECT OF WASTE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY ON LAND DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS PURSUANT TO DEVELOPMENT OF APN: Please take notice that no vested right to a building permit shall accrue as the result of the granting of any land development approvals and applications. Pursuant to the adoption of Ordinance 9.045 by West Valley Sanitation District 4, the agency providing the above described parcel(s) with sewer service, if the District's Manager and Engineer makes a determination that the issuance of a sewer connection permit to a building, or proposed building, on the above described property, will, in his opinion, cause the District to exceed its ability to treat adequately the waste water that would result from the issuance of such connection permit, then said permit may not be issued, and, hence, no building permit may be issued by this agency. If the sewer connection permit is issued, it may contain substantive conditions designed to decrease the waste water associated with any land use approval. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT By signing below, the applicant acknowledges, at the time of application, that he/she fully understands the above. Address of Proposed Development Pistributi0n Original to: West Valley Sanitation District No. 4 100 East Sunnyoaks Avenue, Campbell, CA 95008 Copies to: File Applicant Rv~d. 7/]/92 Att~,.~t D Contribution Disclosure Form Page2 TO BE FILLED OUT BY APPLICANT I. [~' IF CONTRIBUTIONS TOTALING $250 HAVE NOT B~.N MADE, CHECK HERE, AND SIGN BELOW IN SECTION m. II. TO BE COMPLETED ONLY IF CONTRIBUTIONS TOTALING $250 OR MORE HAVE BEEN MADF- NAME: ADDRESS: TELEPHONE NO: LIST COMMISSION MEMBER(S) TO WHOM YOU AND/OR YOUR AGENT MADE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS TOTALING $250 OR MORE, AND THE DATES OF THOSE CONTRIBUTIONS. NAME: CONTRIBUTOR: (ff other than yourselD DATE ($): AMOUNT (S): NAME: CONTRIBUTOR: DATE ($): AMOUNT (S): (ff other than yoursehO ii/other than yourselD NAME: CONTRIBUTOR: DATE (S): AMOUNT (S): III. SIGNATURE t/ DA'I~ Rvsd. 7/1/92 Development Application File No. G P qr,,-o '2_ Planning Department 70 North First Street, Campbedl, California 95008 (408) ~66-2140 ~LPIAN: O..o~ r~ ADDUmS:cOd Rd. CITY/SI'ATE: zm: ~43o4 CITY/STATE: Attach a separate sheet listing the names and addresses of others you wish to receive copies of staff reports and agendas. AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE(S): The undersigned person(s), having an interest in the above-described property, hereby make this application in accordance with the provisions of the Campbell Municipal Code; and, hereby certify that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my/our knowledge and belief. ~~~"~' Date Property owner's Signature Applicant's '~ignaturL Date NOTE: Staff is required by State Law to notify applicants of the completeness of their applications within 30 days. Only those applications which are found complete will be placed on the Planning Commission Agenda. OFFICE USE ONLY PC Meeting: PC Action: CC Meeting: CC Action: Fee Paid: Receipt No: Completeness Letter Sent: 300 Foot Notices Mailed: Press Notice Published: Notice of Prep/Public Review: Notice of Determination: Rvsd. 7/31/92 PROJECT SUMMARY INFORMATION TO BE FILLED OUT BY APPLICANT Requested Amendment: Existing General Plan Designation: Proposed General Plan Designation: Existing Zoning: Q--Z) Proposed Surrounding Uses: North: Zoning: ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Yes No 1. Change in existing features of any lakes, hills, or substantial alteration of ground contours. 2. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads. 3. Change in pattern, scale or character of the general area surrounding the project. 4. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. 5. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. 6. Change in lake, stream or ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns. 7. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. 8. Proposed development is on a filled site or on a slope of 10 percent or more. 9. Use of and/or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives. 10. Substantial change in the demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, etc.). 11. Substantial increase in the demand for fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.). 12. Relationship to la~ger project or series of projects. 13. Additional traffic generation or parking demand. General Plan Amendment Supplemental A~lication Page Discuss below all of the above items checked yes..(Attach, additio~nal s,l)eets as necessa~ry..) 14. Describe the project site as it exists, include information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site. 15. Describe surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the intensilw of lalnd !gse and thg scale of develggmen, t Revised 12/16/92 Attachment C West Valley Sanitation District 4 Acknowledgement NOTICE TO APPLICANTS REGARDING EFFECT OF WASTE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY ON LAND DEVELOPMENT APPROVAI_.S PURSUANT TO DEVELOPMENT OFAPN: ~/~,-~9-o? ~ Please take notice that no vested right to a building permit shall accrue as the result of the granting of any land development approvals and applications. Pursuant to the adoption of Ordinance 9.045 by West Valley Sanitation District 4, the agency providing the above described parcel(s) with sewer service, if the District's Manager and Engineer makes a determination that the issuance of a sewer connection permit to a building, or proposed building, on the above described property, will, in his opinion, cause the District to exceed its ability to treat adequately the waste water that would result from the issuance of such connection permit, then said permit may not be issued, and, hence, no building permit may be issued by this agency. If the sewer connection permit is issued, it may contain substantive conditions designed to decrease the waste water associated with any land use approval. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT By signing below, the applicant acknowledges, at the time of application, that he/she fully understands the above. Address of Proposed ~eve~, / pp 'ca t s Sigmitflre Date Distribution Original to: West Valley Sanitation District No. 4 100 East Sunnyoaks Avenue, Campbell, CA 95008 Copies to: File Applicant Rvsd. 7/1/92 Attachment D Contribution Disclosure Form Page 2 TO BE FILLED OUT BY APPLICANT I. Id IF CONTRIBUTIONS TOTALING $250 HAVE NOT BEEN MADE, CHECK HERE, AND 5IGN BELOW IN SECTION III. II. TO BE COMPLETED ONLY IF CONTRIBUTIONS TOTALING $250 OR MORE HAVE BEEN MADE. NAME: ADDRESS: TELEPHONE NO: LIST COMMISSION MEMBER(S) TO WHOM YOU AND/OR YOUR AGENT MADE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS TOTALING $250 OR MORE, AND THE DATES OF THOSE CO~BUTIONS. (if other than yourself) (if other than yoursehO (if other than yourself) CONTRIBUTOR: DATE (S): AMOUNT (S): NAME: CONTRIBUTOR: DATE (S): AMOUNT (S): NAME: CONTRIBUTOR: DATE (S): AMOUNT (S): III. SIGNATURE Rvsd. 7/1/92 DATE: